Case Name: CHRISTINE O'BRIEN, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN O'BRIEN, DECEASED, APPELLANT, v. CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1930-02-03
Citations: 106 N.J.L. 585
Docket Number: 
Parties: CHRISTINE O’BRIEN, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN O’BRIEN, DECEASED, APPELLANT, v. CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 106
Pages: 585–586

Head Matter:
CHRISTINE O’BRIEN, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN O’BRIEN, DECEASED, APPELLANT, v. CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
Submitted October 26, 1929
Decided February 3, 1930.
Por the appellant, Alexander Simpson.
Por the respondent, William A. BarTcalow and Edwin F. Smith.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Case in the Supreme Court.
We have not failed to observe that the appeal states as a ground of error that the Supreme Court considered the appeal as a rule to show cause. It did not. The opinion states that it is "on appeal from the Hudson County Circuit Court." It ends with the assertion that "the rule to show cause will be discharged, with costs." The case is not considered as on rule to show cause at all, but as on appeal throughout, and the conclusion of the opinion is an obvious mistake. It of course intended to state, "the judgment of the court below will be affirmed, with costs." And we have so treated it.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisch, Bodine, Van Buskirk, MoGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.