Case Name: HOWARD RICHARDSON, RESPONDENT, v. JACOB HEINOCHOWITZ, APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1925-03-16
Citations: 101 N.J.L. 413
Docket Number: 
Parties: HOWARD RICHARDSON, RESPONDENT, v. JACOB HEINOCHOWITZ, APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 413–413

Head Matter:
HOWARD RICHARDSON, RESPONDENT, v. JACOB HEINOCHOWITZ, APPELLANT.
Submitted February 9. 1925
Decided March 16, 1925.
Eor the respondent, Dalrymple & Campbell.
Eor the appellant, Milton M. Unger.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, White, Gardner, Van Buskirk, Clark, McGlennon, Kays, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.