Case ID: njl_101/html/0402-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GEORGE HAMMEL, APPELLANT, v. JESSE VAN SICKLE, RESPONDENT.
    Submitted February 9, 1925
    — Decided March 16, 1925.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose per curiam is printed in 2 N. J. Mis. B. 461.
    For the appellant, Freeman Woodbridge.
    
    For the respondent, Peter Baches.
    
   Pee Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Ci-iiee Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn, Black, Campbell, White, Gardner, Van Buskiek, Clark, McGlennon, Kats, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.