Schreibers v. Drossness

Decision Date31 January 1927
Docket NumberNo. 74.,74.
PartiesAuguste SCHREIBER et al, Respondents v. Nathan DROSSNESS et al., Appellant.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Appeal from a Decree of the Court of Chancery.

Albert H. Holland, of Morristown, for appellants.

King & Vogt, of Morristown, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice Chancellor Fielder, 136 A. 515.

For affirmance. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices TRENCHARD, MINTURN, KALISCH, BLACK, KATZENBACH. CAMPBELL, and LLOYD and Judges VAN BUSKIRK, McGLENNON, KAYS, and HETFIELD.

For reversal: None.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Weinstein v. Swartz
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 31 Octubre 1949
    ...for private dwellings. Sanford v. Keer, 80 N.J.Eq. 240, 245, 83 A. 225, 40 L.R.A., N.S., 1090 (E. & A. 1912); Schreiber v. Drosness, 100 N.J.Eq. 591, 594, 135 A. 920, 136 A. 515 (E. & A. 1926); Wickwire v. Church, 142 N.J.Eq. 174, 59 A.2d 416 (Ch.1948), affirmed 1 N.J. 384, 64 A.2d 55 (1949......
  • La Fetra v. Beveridge
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 11 Mayo 1938
    ...Sanford v. Keer, 80 N.J.Eq. 240, 83 A. 225, 40 L.R.A.,N.S., 1090; Morrow v. Hasselman, 69 N.J.Eq. 612, 61 A. 369; Schreiber v. Drosness, 100 N.J.Eq. 591, 135 A. 920, 136 A. "At the time this tract was laid out there was a high bluff of sand dunes along the ocean front, beyond which was the ......
  • Friedman v. Cicoria
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 2 Junio 1947
    ...rights. Bridgewater v. Ocean City R. R. Co., 62 N.J.Eq. 276, 292, 49 A. 801,affirmed63 N.J.Eq. 798, 52 A. 1130; Schreiber v. Drosness, 100 N.J.Eq. 591, 596, 135 A. 920, 136 A. 515. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reason stated in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Fiel......
  • Humphreys v. Ibach
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 16 Mayo 1932
    ...with the design of the original grantor. Sanford v. Keer, 80 N. J. Eq. 240, 83 A. 225, 40 L. R, A. (N. S.) 1090; Schreiber v. Drosness, 100 N. J. Eq. 591, 135 A. 920, 136 A. 515. No evidence has been presented to show that it was unreasonable to require a 75-foot setback for garages on West......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT