Case Name: JOSEPH KURTZ AND DAVID BUSCH, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. BENJAMIN OREMLAND, PEARL OREMLAND, DAVID LEWIS AND ALBERT M. GREENFIELD & CO., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS; JOSEPH KURTZ AND DAVID BUSCH, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. DUNN'S ENGLISH LEATHER SHOP, INC., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, AND LOUIS W. DUNN AND JESSIE R. DUNN, AND ALBERT M. GREENFIELD & CO., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1954-11-22
Citations: 16 N.J. 454
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOSEPH KURTZ AND DAVID BUSCH, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. BENJAMIN OREMLAND, PEARL OREMLAND, DAVID LEWIS AND ALBERT M. GREENFIELD & CO., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. JOSEPH KURTZ AND DAVID BUSCH, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. DUNN’S ENGLISH LEATHER SHOP, INC., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, AND LOUIS W. DUNN AND JESSIE R. DUNN, AND ALBERT M. GREENFIELD & CO., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: For affirmance — Justices Heher, Oliphant, Wacheneeld and Burling — 4.
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 454–454

Head Matter:
JOSEPH KURTZ AND DAVID BUSCH, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. BENJAMIN OREMLAND, PEARL OREMLAND, DAVID LEWIS AND ALBERT M. GREENFIELD & CO., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. JOSEPH KURTZ AND DAVID BUSCH, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. DUNN’S ENGLISH LEATHER SHOP, INC., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, AND LOUIS W. DUNN AND JESSIE R. DUNN, AND ALBERT M. GREENFIELD & CO., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Argued November 8 and 15, 1954
Decided November 22, 1954.
Mr. Bernard Hellring argued the cause for the appellants (Messrs. Greene \& Hellring, attorneys).
Mr. David M. Perslcie, Mr. William Elmer Brown, Jr., and Mr. Garl Kisselman argued the cause for the respondents (Messrs. Perslcie and Perslcie, and Messrs. Brown and Franlc, attorneys).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Haneman in the court below. 33 N. J. Super. 443 (Ch. Div. 1954).
For affirmance — Justices Heher, Oliphant, Wacheneeld and Burling — 4.
For reversal — Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Jacobs and Brennan — 3.