Case Name: NICHOLAS RAMOS, RESPONDENT, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1920-10-15
Citations: 95 N.J.L. 262
Docket Number: 
Parties: NICHOLAS RAMOS, RESPONDENT, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT.
Judges: For affirmance — The Chief Justice, Trenchard, Ber-geN, MiNtubN, Kalirch, Black:, KatzenbaCH, White, GARDNER, HEPPENHETMER. WILLIAMS, ÁCKERSON, JJ. 12.
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 262–263

Head Matter:
NICHOLAS RAMOS, RESPONDENT, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT.
Submitted July 5, 1920
Decided October 15, 1920.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which court the following per curiaan was filed:
“We think there was evidence to warrant the finding in favor of the plaintiff. The question is one of fact and we. cannot reverse the action of the trial judge. Let the judgment be affirmed, with costs.”
For the respondent, Nathan H. Ret gen.
For the appellant, Frederick M. P. Pearse.

Opinion:
Per CuktaM.
The judgment under review herein should he affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered in the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chief Justice, Trenchard, Ber-geN, MiNtubN, Kalirch, Black:, KatzenbaCH, White, GARDNER, HEPPENHETMER. WILLIAMS, ÁCKERSON, JJ. 12.
For reversal — Xone.