Case ID: nj-eq_110/html/0566-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Otto G. Schultz et al., complainants-appellants, v. Earl H. Johnson et al., defendants-respondents.
    [Submitted February 12th, 1932.
    Decided May 16th, 1932.]
    
      
      Mr. Patrick H. Hardingj for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Louis B. LeDuc, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The decree under review will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Learning.

The grounds stated by him for refusing a preliminary injunction go to the root of the case, and his decision to dismiss the bill as not showing a ease for equitable relief was a necessary result of the reasoning contained in the opinion, which we adopt as adequate for an affirmance of the decree under review.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Tbenchaed, Paeeee, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Van Buskibk, Kays, Hetfield, Deae, Wells, Keeney, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.