Case ID: njl_116/html/0417-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Cueiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MAURICE TEITELBAUM, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MAS SACHUSETTS ACCIDENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. MAURICE TEITELBAUM, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MASSACHUSETTS ACCIDENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    Argued February 10, 1936 —
    Decided May 14, 1936.
    For the defendant-appellant, Herman E. Dultz.
    
    For the plaintiff-respondent, Kanter & Kanter (Charles Kanter).
    
   Pee Cueiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered in the Supreme Court. It should, however, be noted that the plaintiff below admitted that he treated about four patients a week and not four patients a day as inadvertently stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancelloe, Chief Justice, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Hetfield, Deae, Wells, WolfsKeil, JJ. 10.

For reversal — None.