Case ID: njl_67/html/0350-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MICHAEL HURLEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. THE CITY OF TRENTON ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR.
    Argued December 4 and 5, 1901
    Decided March 3, 1902.
    On error to the Supreme Court.
    For the plaintiffs in error, Charles E. Bird and John Rellstab.
    
    For the defendant in error, James J. Cahill and John H. Backes.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, for the reasons given in the opinion of Mr. Justice Fort. 37 Vroom 538.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Van Syckel, Dixon, Garrison, Collins, Hendrickson, Pitney, Krueger, Adams, Vredenburgh, Voorhees. 11

For reversal — Garretson, Vroom. 2.