Case Name: THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BY GROVER C. RICHMAN, Jr., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THE SPERRY & HUTCHINSON COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1960-01-25
Citations: 31 N.J. 385
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BY GROVER C. RICHMAN, Jr., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THE SPERRY & HUTCHINSON COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 385–385

Head Matter:
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BY GROVER C. RICHMAN, Jr., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THE SPERRY & HUTCHINSON COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Argued January 12, 1960
Decided January 25, 1960.
Mr. Ulmer J. Bennett argued the cause for the appellant (Messrs. Carpenter, Bennett and Morrissey, attorneys; Mr. Milton A. Dauber, on the brief).
Mr. Samuel M. Lane, of the New York bar, and Mr. Donald B. Kipp argued the cause for the respondent (Messrs. Pitney, Hardin and Ward, attorneys; Mr. Robert P. Hazlehurst, Jr., on the brief).

Opinion:
Pee Ctjbiam.
The judgment of the Appellate Division, 56 N. J. Super. 589, is affirmed essentially for the reasons stated in its opinion. We add that we cannot find in the record sufficient evidence of specifically identifiable property subject to escheat or custody under the statutes, N. J. S. 2A:37-13 et seq., or N. J. S. 2A:37-29 et seq.
For affirmance—Chief Justice Weintbaub, and Justices Bubling, Jacobs, Feancis, Peoctoe, Hall and Schettino—7.
For reversal—None.