Case Name: LEMBECK & BETTS BREWING COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. MIDDLESEX AND SOMERSET TRACTION COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR; WILLIAM H. MANLY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. MIDDLESEX AND SOMERSET TRACTION COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1904-11-14
Citations: 70 N.J.L. 824
Docket Number: 
Parties: LEMBECK & BETTS BREWING COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. MIDDLESEX AND SOMERSET TRACTION COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR. WILLIAM H. MANLY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. MIDDLESEX AND SOMERSET TRACTION COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Judges: For affirmance — The Chancellor, Dixon, Garrison, Pitney, Swayze, Bogert, Vredenburgi-i, Vroom, Green. 9.
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 824–824

Head Matter:
LEMBECK & BETTS BREWING COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. MIDDLESEX AND SOMERSET TRACTION COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR. WILLIAM H. MANLY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. MIDDLESEX AND SOMERSET TRACTION COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Argued March 8, 1904
Decided November 14, 1904.
Argued March 8, 1904
Decided November 14, 1904.
On error to the Supreme Court.
For the plaintiff in error, Willard P. Voorhees.
For the defendant in error, George S. Silzer.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
These eases were argued together, and they involve the same questions. The judgments are affirmed, for the reasons given in the per curiam opinions in the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Dixon, Garrison, Pitney, Swayze, Bogert, Vredenburgi-i, Vroom, Green. 9.
For reversal — None.