Case Name: MARIE CADGENE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JACQUES CADGENE ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1940-04-25
Citations: 124 N.J.L. 566
Docket Number: 
Parties: MARIE CADGENE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JACQUES CADGENE ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 566–566

Head Matter:
MARIE CADGENE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JACQUES CADGENE ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Submitted February 16, 1940 —
Decided April 25, 1940.
For the plaintiff-respondent, Morrison, Lloyd & Morrison.
For the defendants-appellants, Evans, Smith & Evans.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review herein is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered in the Supreme Court, with this added observation — that Judge Barbour, in support of his conclusions in the instant case, quoted from the opinion of the Hew York Supreme Court (Erie county) in Boehringer v. Schmid, 133 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 236; 232 N. Y. Supp. 360. It may be worthy to note that the judgment of the Hew York Supreme Court in that case was unanimously affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Hew York in a per curiam opinion reported in 254 N. Y. 355; 173 N. E. Rep. 220.
For affirmance — The Chiee Justice, Paekee, Case, Bodine, Donges, Hehee, Peeskie, Poetee, Heteield, Deae, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeeety, Hague, JJ. 14.
For reversal — Hone.