Case ID: njl_70/html/0824-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LEMBECK & BETTS BREWING COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. MIDDLESEX AND SOMERSET TRACTION COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR. WILLIAM H. MANLY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. MIDDLESEX AND SOMERSET TRACTION COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
    Argued March 8, 1904
    Decided November 14, 1904.
    Argued March 8, 1904
    Decided November 14, 1904.
    On error to the Supreme Court.
    For the plaintiff in error, Willard P. Voorhees.
    
    For the defendant in error, George S. Silzer.
    
   Per Curiam.

These eases were argued together, and they involve the same questions. The judgments are affirmed, for the reasons given in the per curiam opinions in the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Dixon, Garrison, Pitney, Swayze, Bogert, Vredenburgi-i, Vroom, Green. 9.

For reversal — None.