Case ID: njl_131/html/0329-01.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

JAMES FRANCIS MORGAN, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER, BESSIE HICKSTEIN MORGAN, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT, v. SUSINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PROSECUTOR-APPELLANT.
    Argued February 3, 1944
    Decided March 23, 1944.
    For the respondent, Hodes & Hodes (Irving L. Hodes).
    
    For the appellant, Thomas J. Brett and Edwin Joseph O’Brien.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for tlie reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court; reserving, however, any expression as to the rights of an unborn child not within the statutory provision. See Stemmer v. Kline, 128 N. J. L. 455.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Parker, Case, Donges, Perskie, Porter, Dear, Hague, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 10.

For reversal — Heiier, Wells, Raeeerty, JJ. 3.