Case Name: LOUIS A. MAURER, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. GOULD & EBERHARDT, INCORPORATED, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1905-03-27
Citations: 72 N.J.L. 314
Docket Number: 
Parties: LOUIS A. MAURER, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. GOULD & EBERHARDT, INCORPORATED, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Judges: For affirmance — Dikon, Port, Garretson, Pitney, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Green, Gray. 9.
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 72
Pages: 314–315

Head Matter:
LOUIS A. MAURER, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. GOULD & EBERHARDT, INCORPORATED, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Argued March 24th, 1905
Decided March 27th, 1905.
On error to the Supreme Court.
For the plaintiff in error, Lindabury, Defue & Faulks.
For the defendant in error, Samuel Kalisch.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment in this ease should be affirmed, for the reasons given in the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — Dikon, Port, Garretson, Pitney, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Green, Gray. 9.
For reversal — None.