Loudenslager v. Pacific Improvement Co.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Learning, who filed the following opinion: “1 am satisfied that the several motions made herein to strike the bill from the files must be denied. “On these motions counsel for defendants have measurably overlooked the requirement that the averments of the bill can alone be considered and that all such averments must be accepted as true.
Read the full summary
On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Learning, who filed the following opinion: “1 am satisfied that the several motions made herein to strike the bill from the files must be denied. “On these motions counsel for defendants have measurably overlooked the requirement that the averments of the bill can alone be considered and that all such averments must be accepted as true. “The restrictive covenants here in question provide that private dwellings only shall be built on the lots referred to in the bill, and that no portion of any building shall be erected…
1Per curiam
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Learning.
For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Swayze, Trenoi-iard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisoh, Black, Katzenbaci-i, Heppeñheimer, Williams, Gardner, Van Buskirk — 13. Bor reversal — None.
2Cited by6 opinions
- ARCHAMBAULT v. SprouseSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1951
- The Riverton Country Club v. ThomasNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1948
- Margate Park Protective Ass'n. v. AbateNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
- Wagenheim v. WillcoxNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1969
- Marneil Realty Corp. v. Twin Brook Realty Corp.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.