Case Name: GEORGE HAMMEL, APPELLANT, v. JESSE VAN SICKLE, RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1925-03-16
Citations: 101 N.J.L. 402
Docket Number: 
Parties: GEORGE HAMMEL, APPELLANT, v. JESSE VAN SICKLE, RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 402–402

Head Matter:
GEORGE HAMMEL, APPELLANT, v. JESSE VAN SICKLE, RESPONDENT.
Submitted February 9, 1925
— Decided March 16, 1925.
For the appellant, Freeman Woodbridge.
For the respondent, Peter Baches.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Ci-iiee Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn, Black, Campbell, White, Gardner, Van Buskiek, Clark, McGlennon, Kats, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.