Case ID: njl_57/html/0711-01.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

WILLIAM MILLS ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. JOHN BAIZLEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
    On error to the Supreme Court.
    For the plaintiff in error, Thomas B. Harned and John J. Crandall.
    
    For the defendant in error, Edward Ambler Armstrong.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, for the reasons given by that court.

For affirmance — The Chief Justice, Gummere, Magie, Réed, Yan Syckel, Sims; 6.

For reversal — Dixon, Lippincott, Bogert, Brown. 4.

CORRECTION. In the case of Michael Meyer, plaintiff in errw', v. Sybilla Krauter, defendant in error, reported in 27 Vroom 696, the vote of the Court of Errors and Appeals was incorrectly reported. The judgment below was reversed and the vote of the court was as follows: For affirmance — The Chancellor. 1. For reversal — Abbett, Garrison, Lippincott, Magie, Van Syckel, Bogert. Brown, Smith. 8. 712  
    
      CORRECTION. In the case of Michael Meyer, plaintiff in errw', v. Sybilla Krauter, defendant in error, reported in 27 Vroom 696, the vote of the Court of Errors and Appeals was incorrectly reported. The judgment below was reversed and the vote of the court was as follows: For affirmance — The Chancellor. 1. For reversal — Abbett, Garrison, Lippincott, Magie, Van Syckel, Bogert. Brown, Smith. 8. 712