Case Name: BLACK AND WHITE OPERATING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. EMIL GROSBART, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1929-05-27
Citations: 7 N.J. Misc. 514
Docket Number: 
Parties: BLACK AND WHITE OPERATING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. EMIL GROSBART, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 514–514

Head Matter:
BLACK AND WHITE OPERATING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. EMIL GROSBART, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Submitted October term, 1928
Decided May 27, 1929.
Before Justices Teenohaed, Kalisch and Lloyd.
Eor the appellant, Harry Levin.
Eor the respondent, George F. Seymour, Jr.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam.
Since the per curiam opinion was filed in this case our attention has been called by counsel to a supplemental state of the case which appears to have been signed by the trial judge two months after the original state of the ease had been signed.
Without passing on the sufficiency of such a state of the record, we have examined the reasons urged for reversal and find them without merit, and the judgment is affirmed.