Case ID: njl_127/html/0596-01.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

ANTOINETTE COVIELLO, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    Reargued October 21, 1941 —
    Decided January 9, 1942.
    For the appellant, Wall, Haight, Ccwey & Hartpence {John A. Hartpence and Charles J. Gormley, of counsel).
    For the respondent, Collins <& Corbin {Edward A. Markley, Charles W. Broadhurst and Raymond J. Lamb, of counsel).
   Per Curiam.

Reargument of the issue joined in this cause was had pursuant to leave duly granted. It leaves us convinced that the judgment should be reversed, for the reasons set down in the opinion heretofore filed herein and reported in 126 N. J. L. 536. Appellant may proceed accordingly.

For affirmance — Case, Donges, Porter, Dear, Wells, Thompson, JJ. 6.

For reversal — The Chancellor, Bodine, Heher, Colie, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 7.