Case Name: Otto G. Schultz et al., complainants-appellants, v. Earl H. Johnson et al., defendants-respondents
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1932-05-16
Citations: 110 N.J. Eq. 566
Docket Number: 
Parties: Otto G. Schultz et al., complainants-appellants, v. Earl H. Johnson et al., defendants-respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 110
Pages: 566–569

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.