VAN WINKLE v. STENECK | N.J. | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem

AMICUS AI

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Mr. Marshall A. Van Winkle, pro se, for the complainant-
Mr. L. Edward Herrmann, for the defendants-
Mr. J. Emil Walscheid, for the defendant-respondent John J.
Burke, Sheridan Hourigan, for the defendant-respondent Seaboard Trust
Lichtenstein, Schwartz Friedenberg, for the defendant-respondent Fred A.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Mr. Marshall A. Van Winkle, pro se, for the complainant-
Mr. L. Edward Herrmann, for the defendants-
Mr. J. Emil Walscheid, for the defendant-respondent John J.
Burke, Sheridan Hourigan, for the defendant-respondent Seaboard Trust
Lichtenstein, Schwartz Friedenberg, for the defendant-respondent Fred A.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

MARSHALL VAN WINKLE, complainant-respondent, v. HENRY C. STENECK and GEORGEW. STENECK, defendants-appellants; JOHN J. FALLON, SEABOARD TRUST COMPANYand FRED A. SEIDE, defendants-respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the conclusions reached by the court below and the decree appealed from is affirmed.

For affirmance — TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, COLE, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments