Case Name: Lucille Kurth Strong, complainant-respondent, v. James H. Strong and Stronghold, Inc., defendants-appellants
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1946-01-31
Citations: 137 N.J. Eq. 537
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lucille Kurth Strong, complainant-respondent, v. James H. Strong and Stronghold, Inc., defendants-appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 537–537

Head Matter:
Lucille Kurth Strong, complainant-respondent, v. James H. Strong and Stronghold, Inc., defendants-appellants.
[Argued October 23d, 1945.
Decided January 31st, 1946.]
Mr. William Reich, for the respondent.
Mr. Harry Green, for the appellants.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We have carefully examined the argument of appellant and find the same to be without merit.
The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Jayne, and reported at 136 N. J. Eq. 361.
For affirmance — -The Chief-Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Colie, Oliphant, Wells, Rafferty, Dill, Freund, McGeehan, JJ. 14.
For reversal — None.