Case ID: njl_110/html/0027-01.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

JAMES THOMAS, RESPONDENT, v. LIONDALE BLEACH, DYE AND PRINT WORKS, APPELLANT.
    Argued October 26, 1932
    Decided January 23, 1933.
    For the respondent, John C. Grimshaw.
    
    For the appellant, Kellogg & Chance.
    
   Pee Cueiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered per curiam in the Supreme Court, and printed in 10 N. J. Mis. R. 255.

For affirmance — The Chancelloe, Pabicee, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Beogan, Hehee, Kays, Hetfield, Wells, Keeney, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.