Case ID: nj_42/html/0313-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THELMA GLASICO, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT AND LIMITED APPELLANT, v. ROSE RIBBON & CARBON MFG. CO., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
    Argued December 16, 1963
    Decided May 4, 1964.
    Jír. Isidor Kalisch argued the cause for respondent-appellant, by its insurance carrier, New Jersey Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Company.
    
      Mr. Bobert J. 8. Mc-Coid argued the cause for respondent, by its insurance carrier, Insurance Company of North America (Messrs. Schneider & Morgan, attorneys; Mr. Henry G. Morgan, of counsel; Mr. Stanley J. Perwin, on the brief).
    
      
      Mr. Seymour B. Jacobs argued the cause for petitioner-respondent and limited appellant (Messrs. Balk & Jacobs, attorneys; Mr. Seymour B. Jacobs, of counsel and on the brief).
   The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Curiam.

This is a companion case to Bond v. Rose Ribbon & Carbon Mfg. Co., 42 N. J. 308 (1964). Both matters accompanied each other through the various proceedings. We granted the petition to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Division, 40 N. J. 499. Their marked factual-legal similarity obviates the necessity of separate treatment, and we conceive that what we have said in Bond applies with equal force here.

We therefore affirm for the reasons stated by the Appellate Division in Bond v. Rose Ribbon & Carbon Mfg. Co., 78 N. J. Super. 505 (App. Div. 1963), subject to our additional statements contained in Bond, 42 N. J. 308, including those pertaining to costs, fees and interest.

Affirmed subject as aforesaid.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Erancis, Proctor, Hall, Sohettino and Haneman — 7.

For reversal — Hone.