Case ID: njl_113/html/0160-01.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

MAX TIEGER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. v. SAMUEL LUNDY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    Argued May 22, 1934
    — Decided May 24, 1934.
    For the defendant-appellant, Bolte & Tripician (Harry Miller).
    
    For the plaintiff-respondent, John B. Baratía (William B. Hunter, Jr.).
    
   Per Curiam.

From an examination of the record in this case it is apparent that there were fact questions presented which were submitted by the trial judge to the jury in a charge that was faultless, so far as any question is presented for our determination.

The judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Pbrskie, Yan Buskirk, Dear, Wells, JJ. 13.-

For reversal — None.