Case Name: PETER PETERSON, PLAINTIFF, v. REBECCA KRINICK AND HARRY KRINICK, DEFENDANTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1929-12-21
Citations: 8 N.J. Misc. 1
Docket Number: 
Parties: PETER PETERSON, PLAINTIFF, v. REBECCA KRINICK AND HARRY KRINICK, DEFENDANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 1–1

Head Matter:
PETER PETERSON, PLAINTIFF, v. REBECCA KRINICK AND HARRY KRINICK, DEFENDANTS.
Submitted May term, 1929
Decided December 21, 1929.
Before Justices Trenchard, Lloyd and Case.
Bor the plaintiff, Goult, Satz & Tomlinson.
Bor the defendants, Turner & Stalter.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is an application for rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted on the ground that the verdict was excessive. An examination of the proofs and the arguments leads ns to the conclusion that a rule to show cause should issue. Let it issue accordingly.