Case Name: MOE GREEN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, AND JEAN GREEN, PLAINTIFF, v. BUCK BROTHERS CO., AND JOHN R. HAMILTON, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS, v. ROSEMARY DAWICKI, ET AL., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1967-12-22
Citations: 51 N.J. 6
Docket Number: 
Parties: MOE GREEN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, AND JEAN GREEN, PLAINTIFF, v. BUCK BROTHERS CO., AND JOHN R. HAMILTON, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS, v. ROSEMARY DAWICKI, ET AL., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 6–6

Head Matter:
MOE GREEN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, AND JEAN GREEN, PLAINTIFF, v. BUCK BROTHERS CO., AND JOHN R. HAMILTON, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS, v. ROSEMARY DAWICKI, ET AL., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS.
Argued December 19,1967
Decided December 22,1967.
Mr. John A. Gleeson for appellants (Messrs. Mead, Glee-son, Hansen & Pantages, attorneys; Messrs. Gassert and Murphy, of counsel; Mr. Joseph A. Gtarhen, Jr., on the brief).
Mr. Julius B. Poppinga for respondent (Messrs. Seaman, Williams & Seaman, attorneys; Messrs. McGorler & English, of counsel).

Opinion:
Pee Ctjeiam.
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of Judge Leonard in the Appellate Division, 98 N. J. Super. 187.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Weinteatjb and Justices Jacobs, Eeakcis, Peootoe, Goldmark, Schettino and Hanemak—7.
For reversal—None.