Case Name: BLANCHE BUDNICK, BY NEXT FRIEND, AND JOSEPH BUDNICK, v. ISIDOR FINKEL, DOING BUSINESS AS ESSEX COUNTY NEWIS COMPANY
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1926-04-29
Citations: 4 N.J. Misc. 401
Docket Number: 
Parties: BLANCHE BUDNICK, BY NEXT FRIEND, AND JOSEPH BUDNICK, v. ISIDOR FINKEL, DOING BUSINESS AS ESSEX COUNTY NEWIS COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 401–401

Head Matter:
BLANCHE BUDNICK, BY NEXT FRIEND, AND JOSEPH BUDNICK, v. ISIDOR FINKEL, DOING BUSINESS AS ESSEX COUNTY NEWIS COMPANY.
Submitted November Term, 1925
Decided April 29, 1926.
Before Gummebe, Chief Justice, and Justices Kalisch and Campbell.
Eor the rule, Edwin F. Smith.
Contra, Thomas F. Meaney.

Opinion:
Peb Oubiam.
Defendant has this rule to show cause why the verdicts secured by plaintiffs should not be set aside. As no brief has been filed with us by counsel for the defendant, it is probable that the prosecution of such rule has been abandoned. We have, however, examined the proofs, and conclude that the verdicts should not be disturbed.
The rule to show cause is therefore discharged.