Case Name: AUTO BROKERAGE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, APPELLANT, v. SAMUEL F. WILSON, RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1926-03-26
Citations: 102 N.J.L. 425
Docket Number: 
Parties: AUTO BROKERAGE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, APPELLANT, v. SAMUEL F. WILSON, RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 102
Pages: 425–429

Head Matter:
AUTO BROKERAGE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, APPELLANT, v. SAMUEL F. WILSON, RESPONDENT.
Argued November 2, 1925
Decided March 26, 1926.
For the appellant, Heine, Bradner & Laird (Palmer Bradner, of counsel).
For the respondent, Arthur T. Vanderbilt.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Dungan.
We, however, desire to call attention to the fact that it is not clear to us that the question whether the infant surely was liable on the bond under the rule in La Rosa v. Nichols, 92 N. J. L. 375, was raised in the court below, nor is it clear that the question was raised in this court. In any event, in the view we take of this case, that question does not now call for decision, and we express no opinion with respect thereto.
For affirmance — The Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, McGLENNON, KAYS, HETFIELD, JJ, 11.
For reversal — None.