Case Name: LENA GREENWALD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ABRAHAM GELLER, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1932-10-17
Citations: 109 N.J.L. 549
Docket Number: 
Parties: LENA GREENWALD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ABRAHAM GELLER, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 109
Pages: 549–549

Head Matter:
LENA GREENWALD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ABRAHAM GELLER, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
Argued May 18, 1932 —
Decided October 17, 1932.
For the appellant, James F. X. O’Brien.
For the defendant, Edward A. Markley.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The facts and questions of law involved are fully stated in the per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court. That opinion makes a slight misstatement of fact which, however, is quite immaterial to the decision, the statement being that the plaintiff was entering the premises in question, whereas the testimony indicates that she was leaving them. This, of course, makes no difference in the result as the principles of law applicable are precisely the same.
The judgment will, therefore, be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chanoelloe, Paekee, Case, Bodine, Donges, Beogan, Yan Btjskikk, Kays, Deae, Wells, Keeney, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.