Case ID: njl_72/html/0314-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LOUIS A. MAURER, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. GOULD & EBERHARDT, INCORPORATED, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
    Argued March 24th, 1905
    Decided March 27th, 1905.
    On error to the Supreme Court.
    For the plaintiff in error, Lindabury, Defue & Faulks.
    
    For the defendant in error, Samuel Kalisch.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment in this ease should be affirmed, for the reasons given in the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — Dikon, Port, Garretson, Pitney, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Green, Gray. 9.

For reversal — None.