Case ID: nj-eq_90/html/0604-01.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

Ernest G. Randal, complainant-respondent, v. Hillside Pleasure Park Company et al., defendants-appellants.
    [Argued March term, 1919.
    Decided June 20th, 1919.]
    On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery.
    
      Mr. Henry L. Oroshen, for the appellants.
    
      Mr. Arthur T. Vanderbilt, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The questions raised on the appeal in this case are identical with those reviewed and decided in Hedden v. Hand, No. 24 o! the March term, 1919 (see aiüe p. 535), and for the reasons given in the opinion in that case, the order of the court of chancery is reversed.

For affirmance — "White—1.

For reversal — The Ci-iiee-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisoi-i, I-Ieppeni-ieimer, Taylor, Gardner — 10.