Case ID: njl_86/html/0369-01.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

CHARLES S. SHULTZ, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. KATE A. MIAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    Submitted December 15, 1913
    Decided March 16, 1914.
    On appeal from the Hudson County Circuit Court.
    Bor the plaintiff-respondent, Rudolph Schroeder and John 1). Pierson.
    
    Bor the defendant-appellant, Sum'll,el A. Besson.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should he affirmed, for the reasons firstly and secondly expressed in the opinion delivered by the Chancellor in the case of Davis v. Mial, at the present term of this court, ante p. 167.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchaed, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kaliscit, Bogicrt, Vredenburgh, Congdon, Tebhune, Heppenheimer, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.