Case ID: njl_52/html/0559-01.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

MARY A. SCHANCK, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. STEPHEN D. ELY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
    On error to the Supreme Court. Eor opinion of Supreme •Court, see ante,p. 119.
    Eor the plaintiff in error, 8. M. Sahanch and Woodbury _D. .Holt.
    
    Eor the defendant in error, Carroll Robbins and Barker ■ Cummere. .
    
   Per Curiam.

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

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, rScuDLER, Yan Syckel, Brown, Clement, Cole, Smith, Whitaker. 9.

For reversal—Dixon. 1.