Case Name: EDMUND D. VANDERBILT, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. KATE A. MIAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1914-03-16
Citations: 86 N.J.L. 376
Docket Number: 
Parties: EDMUND D. VANDERBILT, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. KATE A. MIAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 376–376

Head Matter:
EDMUND D. VANDERBILT, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. KATE A. MIAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Submitted December 15, 1913
Decided March 16, 1914.
Oil appeal from the Hudson County Circuit Court.
Bor the plaintiff-respondent, Rudolph Schroeder and John D. Pierson.
Bor the defendant-appellant, Samuel A. Besson.

Opinion:
Per Cue cam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons firstly and secondly expressed in the opinion delivered by the Chancellor in the ease of Davis v. Mial, at the present term of this court, ante p. 167.
For affirmance — Ti-ie Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Congdon, White, Heppen-HEIMER, JJ. 13.
For reversal — Hone.