Case Name: MAX TIEGER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. v. SAMUEL LUNDY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1934-05-24
Citations: 113 N.J.L. 160
Docket Number: 
Parties: MAX TIEGER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. v. SAMUEL LUNDY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 113
Pages: 160–160

Head Matter:
MAX TIEGER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. v. SAMUEL LUNDY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Argued May 22, 1934
— Decided May 24, 1934.
For the defendant-appellant, Bolte & Tripician (Harry Miller).
For the plaintiff-respondent, John B. Baratía (William B. Hunter, Jr.).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
From an examination of the record in this case it is apparent that there were fact questions presented which were submitted by the trial judge to the jury in a charge that was faultless, so far as any question is presented for our determination.
The judgment is affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Pbrskie, Yan Buskirk, Dear, Wells, JJ. 13.-
For reversal — None.