Case Name: WILLIAM T. NEWBURY, APPELLANT, v. RULIFF V. LAWRENCE, JUDGE, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1926-09-16
Citations: 103 N.J.L. 199
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAM T. NEWBURY, APPELLANT, v. RULIFF V. LAWRENCE, JUDGE, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 103
Pages: 199–199

Head Matter:
WILLIAM T. NEWBURY, APPELLANT, v. RULIFF V. LAWRENCE, JUDGE, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Submitted May 28, 1926
Decided September 16, 1926.
For the appellant, James Mercer Davis.
For the respondents, Slokes & McDermott.

Opinion:
Per. Curiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the per curiam opinion delivered in the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chief Justice, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Campbell, White, Van Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, JJ. 11.
For reversal — Hone.