Case Name: WILLIAM LEVINE, RESPONDENT, v. ANNE BLUMENTHAL ET AL., APPELLANTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1937-01-22
Citations: 117 N.J.L. 426
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAM LEVINE, RESPONDENT, v. ANNE BLUMENTHAL ET AL., APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 426–426

Head Matter:
WILLIAM LEVINE, RESPONDENT, v. ANNE BLUMENTHAL ET AL., APPELLANTS.
Argued October 23, 1936
Decided January 22, 1937.
For the appellants, Joseph Grossman.
For the respondent, Mortimer L. Mahler.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The facts, and the arguments thereon, adequately appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court, ubi supra. We find ourselves unable to perceive the distinction in principle or in essential facts, between this case and the recent decision of this court in Haynes Auto Repair Co. v. Wheels, Inc., 115 N. J. L. 447, a unanimous decision of this court.
The judgment under review will be affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Cole, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.