Case ID: nj-eq_111/html/0445-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Cubiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Noel Pemberton Billing, complainant-respondent, v. Breeze Corporations, Incorporated, defendant-appellant.
    [Submitted May 27th, 1932.
    Decided October 17th, 1932.]
    On appeal from an order of the court of chancery advised by Yice-Chancellor Berry, who filed the following opinion:
    “In the matter of Billing v. Breeze Corporations, Incorporated, I have examined the bill of complaint and considered the briefs of counsel in connection with the motion to strike the bill for want of equity and on other grounds stated in the notice of the motion and this is to advise you that the motion is denied. There is sufficient in the bill of complaint to justify the raising of an implied contract in the absence of any denial of the facts alleged, and the bill could be maintained without this on the ground of fraud, which, I think, is pleaded with sufficient clarity. I think also that the complainant is entitled to a mandatory order at this time directing the delivery of the models to the complainant.”
    
      Mr. Lionel P. Kristeller, for the appellant.
    
      Messrs. McCarter •& English, for the respondent.
   Pee Cubiam.

The order appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Berry.

For affirmance — The Chancellob, Tbenchabd, Paekee, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Beogan, Van Buskiek, Kays, Deae, Wells, Keeney, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.