Opinion
Submitted February term, 1939.
Decided April 21st, 1939.
On appeal from the court of chancery, whose opinion is reported in 124 N.J. Eq. 487.
Mr. Abraham M. Herman, for the complainant-appellant.
Mr. Charles C. Pilgrim, for the defendants-respondents.
We have carefully examined the record and the arguments of counsel in this cause. The conclusion of the learned vice-chancellor, who dismissed the complainant's bill seeking a receiver for the defendant company, was in all respects proper, because the bill lacked proofs and was insufficient.
The decree of dismissal is, therefore, affirmed.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, JJ. 14.
For reversal — None.