Case Name: SAMUEL KIRBY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. EDWARD S. LEE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1909-03-01
Citations: 77 N.J.L. 618
Docket Number: 
Parties: SAMUEL KIRBY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. EDWARD S. LEE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Judges: For affirmance—The ChaNcellor, Chief Justice, Gar-KISON, SWAYZE, TRENCIIARD, PARKER, MlNTHRN, BOGERT, VhedeNburgii, Vroom, GRAY, Dill, J.J. 12.
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 618–618

Head Matter:
SAMUEL KIRBY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. EDWARD S. LEE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Argued November 27, 1908
Decided March 1, 1909.
On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported ante p. 68.
For the plaintiff in error, Bennet Van Stjclcel and Bourgeois & Sooy.
For the defendant in error, William M. Clevenger and Joseph II. Gashill.

Opinion:
PER CuRIAM.
The judgment of the Supreme Court should he affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Reed in that court.
For affirmance—The ChaNcellor, Chief Justice, Gar-KISON, SWAYZE, TRENCIIARD, PARKER, MlNTHRN, BOGERT, VhedeNburgii, Vroom, GRAY, Dill, J.J. 12.
For reversal—None.