Case Name: JOHN H. MARTIN, RESPONDENT, v. SAMUEL W. DE YOUNG AND CHARLES GARLLIMUND, PARTNERS, TRADING UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF DE YOUNG & GARRLIMUND, AND LESTER WELSH, APPELLANTS
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1923-11-19
Citations: 99 N.J.L. 284
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN H. MARTIN, RESPONDENT, v. SAMUEL W. DE YOUNG AND CHARLES GARLLIMUND, PARTNERS, TRADING UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF DE YOUNG & GARRLIMUND, AND LESTER WELSH, APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 284–285

Head Matter:
JOHN H. MARTIN, RESPONDENT, v. SAMUEL W. DE YOUNG AND CHARLES GARLLIMUND, PARTNERS, TRADING UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF DE YOUNG & GARRLIMUND, AND LESTER WELSH, APPELLANTS.
Submitted July 9, 1923
Decided November 19, 1923.
On appeal from the Supreme Court.
Por the appellants, John A. Matthews (Groshen & Moriarity, on the brief).
Por the respondent, Couli <£• Woodruff (Joseph Couli, Jr., of counsel).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff, John H. Martin, was injured in the same accident, as was the plaintiff, in No. 65 of the June term, 1923, and obtained a judgment against the same defendants, from which judgment the latter appealed to this court. The cases were tried together, and the same questions regarding alleged trial errors were involved and discussed on the appeal. Por the reasons given in the opinion filed in the ease of Osbun v. Samuel W. De Young et al., ante p. 204, the judgment in this case is affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenohard, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbacii, White, IIeppenheimer, Ackerson, Van Buskirk, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.