Case Name: O'GORMAN & YOUNG, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLANT, v. PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, OF LONDON, A CORPORATION OF GREAT BRITAIN, RESPONDENT; O'GORMAN & YOUNG, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLANT, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1929-05-20
Citations: 105 N.J.L. 642
Docket Number: 
Parties: O’GORMAN & YOUNG, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLANT, v. PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, OF LONDON, A CORPORATION OF GREAT BRITAIN, RESPONDENT. O’GORMAN & YOUNG, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLANT, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 105
Pages: 642–646

Head Matter:
O’GORMAN & YOUNG, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLANT, v. PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, OF LONDON, A CORPORATION OF GREAT BRITAIN, RESPONDENT. O’GORMAN & YOUNG, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLANT, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, RESPONDENT.
Argued February 19, 1929
Decided May 20, 1929.
For the appellant, Pilgrim & Bitger.
For the respondents, Lum, Tamblyn & Colyer.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion by Judge Dungan in the Circuit Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisch, Black, McGlennon, Kays, JJ. 8.
For reversal — Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Van Buskiek, Hetfield, Dear, JJ. 6.