Case Name: MONROE HOTEL COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. ESTATE OF RICHARD B. SOMERS, HELENA S. CONOVER ET AL., EXECUTRIX, ETC., RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1921-11-21
Citations: 96 N.J.L. 298
Docket Number: 
Parties: MONROE HOTEL COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. ESTATE OF RICHARD B. SOMERS, HELENA S. CONOVER ET AL., EXECUTRIX, ETC., RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 298–298

Head Matter:
MONROE HOTEL COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. ESTATE OF RICHARD B. SOMERS, HELENA S. CONOVER ET AL., EXECUTRIX, ETC., RESPONDENTS.
Argued March 3, 1921
Decided November 21, 1921.
The judges being equally divided on the question whether the judgment should be reversed, the judgment is affirmed, solely because of such division, which renders any opinion by the court impossible.
On appeal from the Atlantic County Circuit Court.
This was a suit to recover on the endorsement of a promis•sory note. Upon plaintiff's counsel opening the case to the court and jury, counsel for defendants, moved to nonsuit the plaintiff upon the ground that the facts offered to be proved did not constitute a cause for action against the defendants. The trial judge granted the motion. ' From the judgment thereupon entered the plaintiff has appealed to this court.
For the appellant, Clairence L. Goldenberg.
For the respondents^ Thompson & Hanstein.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
. The judges being equally divided on the question whether the judgment should be' reversed, the judgment is affirmed, solely because of such division, which renders any opinion, by the court impossible.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Ci-iiee Justice, Swayze, Bergen, Minturn, Black, Williams, JJ. 7.
For reversal—Parker, Kalisci-i, Katzenbaci-t, White, Heppeni-leimer, Gardner, Ackerson, JJ. 7.