Case ID: njl_82/html/0732-01.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

JOHN DIETRICH, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. THE TOWN OF WEST HOBOKEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
    Argued November 24, 1911
    Decided March 4, 1912.
    On error to the Supreme Court.
    For the plaintiff in error, Merritt Lane.
    
    For the defendant in error, Edwards & Smitli and James C. Afinew.
    
   Per Curiam.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in Dubelbeiss v. The Town of West Hoboken, decided at this term, the judgment under review in this case will be affirmed.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Kalisch, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Congdon, White, JJ. 13.

For reversal—None.