From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heine v. Hayden

Court of Errors and Appeals
Feb 1, 1926
99 N.J. Eq. 455 (N.J. 1926)

Opinion

Decided February 1st, 1926.

On appeal from an order of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Backes, whose opinion is reported in 98 N.J. Eq. 38, under the name of Stanber v. Sims Magneto Co.

Mr. William Harris, for the respondents.

Messrs. Lum, Tamblyn Colyer, for the appellants.


The order appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Backes.

For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, MINTURN, BLACK, KATZENBACH, CAMPBELL, LLOYD, VAN BUSKIRK, McGLENNON, KAYS, HETFIELD, JJ. 12.

For reversal — KALISCH, WHITE, GARDNER, JJ. 3.


Summaries of

Heine v. Hayden

Court of Errors and Appeals
Feb 1, 1926
99 N.J. Eq. 455 (N.J. 1926)
Case details for

Heine v. Hayden

Case Details

Full title:M. CASEWELL HEINE et al., receivers, c., respondents, v. CHARLES R. HAYDEN…

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Feb 1, 1926

Citations

99 N.J. Eq. 455 (N.J. 1926)

Citing Cases

Morehouse v. Keyport Auto Sales Co., Inc.

This lapse of time is not a compliance with the statute, and the mortgage is therefore void as to creditors.…

Morehouse v. Keyport Auto Sales Co., Inc.

This lapse of time is not a compliance with the statute and the mortgage is therefore void as to creditors.…