Case ID: njl_78/html/0741-01.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

PROSPECT BOILER COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. BLOOMFIELD CLAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
    Submitted December 6, 1909
    Decided February 28, 1910.
    On error to the Supreme Court.
    For the plaintiff in error, George S. Silzer.
    
    For the defendant in error, John H. Backes.
    
   Per Curiam.

The questions raised in this ease are not sufficiently novel or doubtful to require particular discussion at our hands. We find no error in the record.

The judgment under review should be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Reed, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Bogert, Vredenburgu, Vroom, Gray, Dill, Congdon, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.