94 N.J.L. 567
Decided June 14, 1920
Supreme Court of New Jersey · decided 1920-06-14
<p>On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 94 H. J. L. 19.</p>
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1957
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1920-06-14
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1The judgment under review should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Gummere in the Supreme Court.
¶2For affirmance—Swayze, Trenchabd, Bergen, Kaltscit, White, Hepbeniieimeb, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, Ackbrson, JJ. 10.
¶3For reversal—Parees, J. 1.