Case ID: njl_101/html/0413-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HOWARD RICHARDSON, RESPONDENT, v. JACOB HEINOCHOWITZ, APPELLANT.
    Submitted February 9. 1925
    Decided March 16, 1925.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose per curiam is printed in 2 N. J. Mis. B. 919.
    Eor the respondent, Dalrymple & Campbell.
    
    Eor the appellant, Milton M. Unger.
    
   Pee Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, White, Gardner, Van Buskirk, Clark, McGlennon, Kays, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.