Legal Opinion

Christiansen v. Local 680, Milk Drivers, C.

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided January 5, 1940PublishedCited by 24 opinions

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

  1. Hudson v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific RailwayCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
  2. Borough of Vineland v. MarettiNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1922
  3. Lehigh Structural Steel Co. v. Atlantic Smelting & Refining WorksNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1920
  4. White Mountain Freezer Co. v. MurphySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1917
  5. Moresh v. O'ReganSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1937

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Western Maryland Dairy, Inc. v. ChenowithCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1942
  2. Bogue Electric Co. v. Board of Review of the Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor & IndustrySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1956
  3. Carroll v. L. No. 269New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1943
  4. Dooley v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1941
  5. Lillard v. Employment Security CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1961

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API