Opinion · Njlaw New Jersey

FIKE v. FIKE, 99 N.J. Eq. 424 (1926)

ROSE E. FIKE, respondent, v. ROY E. FIKE, appellant., 99 N.J. Eq. 424 (Ct. Err. & App. 1926)

Type
Opinion
Court
Njlaw New Jersey
Jurisdiction
Njlaw
Date
1926-02-01
Topic
general

FIKE v. FIKE, 99 N.J. Eq. 424 (1926) ROSE E. FIKE, respondent, v. ROY E.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed FIKE v. FIKE, 99 N.J. Eq. 424 (1926). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

FIKEv.FIKE,99 N.J. Eq. 424(1926)
ROSE E. FIKE, respondent,v.ROY E. FIKE, appellant.
Court of Errors and Appeals.
Decided February 1st, 1926.
On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Buchanan, whose opinion is reported in3 N.J.Mis. R. 485.
Messrs. McCarter English, for the respondent.Mr. Robert Newton Crane, for the appellant.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Buchanan.For affirmance— THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, MINTURN, KALISCH, BLACK, KATZENBACH, CAMPBELL, LLOYD, WHITE, GARDNER, VAN BUSKIRK, McGLENNON, KAYS, HETFIELD, JJ. 15.For reversal— None.Page 425