Case Name: PROSPECT BOILER COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. BLOOMFIELD CLAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1910-02-28
Citations: 78 N.J.L. 741
Docket Number: 
Parties: PROSPECT BOILER COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. BLOOMFIELD CLAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 78
Pages: 741–741

Head Matter:
PROSPECT BOILER COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. BLOOMFIELD CLAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Submitted December 6, 1909
Decided February 28, 1910.
On error to the Supreme Court.
For the plaintiff in error, George S. Silzer.
For the defendant in error, John H. Backes.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The questions raised in this ease are not sufficiently novel or doubtful to require particular discussion at our hands. We find no error in the record.
The judgment under review should be affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Reed, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Bogert, Vredenburgu, Vroom, Gray, Dill, Congdon, JJ. 15.
For reversal — None.