In Re Judges in Chancery
New Jersey Court of Chancery
1Opinion of the Court
The requests from lawyers and others, principally lawyers, for advisory opinions from the chancellor, vice-chancellors and masters in chancery, have become so numerous that something should be said to show their true character, and also to dissuade those who thus seek their law, and to justify the judges in refusing it.
It must be apparent to everybody that for a judge to give advice upon a cause which may possibly come into his court in some form or other, is wrong in principle and practice. The giving of advice is the business of attorneys and counselors-at-law; the deciding of questions in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Crawford v. Ferguson, County JudgeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1911
- Garrett v. GarrettNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1916
- United States Trust Co. N.Y. v. SpeirNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1924
- Bull v. International Power Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1916
- Cammack v. JohnsonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1839
3Cited by9 opinions
- In Re QuinlanNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1975
- Burd v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
- State v. AbeskaronNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1999
- Etz v. WeinmannNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
- Holden v. MorganNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.