Christiansen v. Local 680, Milk Drivers, C.
New Jersey Court of Chancery
1Opinion of the Court
Tuscan Dairy Farms, a defendant against which is exhibited the supplemental counter-claim of its co-defendant Local 680 of the Milk Drivers and Dairy Employes, moves to strike the counter-claim on the ground that it does not state a cause of action. The motion is, in substance, a demurrer and, like a demurrer, admits every allegation of the counter-claim which is well pleaded. Board of Commissioners, c., of Vineland v.Maretti, 93 N.J. Eq. 513; Kuskin v. Guttman, 98 N.J. Eq. 617;99 N.J. Eq. 887; Baum v. Canter, 104 N.J. Eq. 224; New OrderBuilding and Loan Association v. Landau, 9 N.J. Mis. R.…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Hudson v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific RailwayCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
- Borough of Vineland v. MarettiNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1922
- Lehigh Structural Steel Co. v. Atlantic Smelting & Refining WorksNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1920
- White Mountain Freezer Co. v. MurphySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1917
- Moresh v. O'ReganSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1937
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Western Maryland Dairy, Inc. v. ChenowithCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1942
- Bogue Electric Co. v. Board of Review of the Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor & IndustrySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1956
- Carroll v. L. No. 269New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1943
- Dooley v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1941
- Lillard v. Employment Security CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1961
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.