Case Name: EVELYN CROFT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THOMAS W. BUNTING, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT; EVELYN CROFT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THEODORE C. TIEDEKEN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT; EVELYN CROFT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. WILLIAM H. TIEDEKEN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT; EVELYN CROFT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. EARL W. TWITCHELL, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1938-09-16
Citations: 121 N.J.L. 51
Docket Number: 
Parties: EVELYN CROFT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THOMAS W. BUNTING, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. EVELYN CROFT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THEODORE C. TIEDEKEN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. EVELYN CROFT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. WILLIAM H. TIEDEKEN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. EVELYN CROFT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. EARL W. TWITCHELL, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 51–52

Head Matter:
EVELYN CROFT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THOMAS W. BUNTING, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. EVELYN CROFT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THEODORE C. TIEDEKEN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. EVELYN CROFT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. WILLIAM H. TIEDEKEN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. EVELYN CROFT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. EARL W. TWITCHELL, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Argued May 18, 1938
Decided September 16, 1938.
For the plaintiff-appellant, Joseph Beck Tyler.
For Thomas W. Bunting, Theodore C. Tiedeken and William H. Tiedeken, Boyle & Archer.
For Earl W. Twitchell, Ralph N. Kellam.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We have carefully examined the record in these cases and the briefs and argument of counsel and can only conclude that the questions of fact were property found and the questions of law were correctly settled by the learned trial judge.
The judgment is affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Case, Bodine, Heher, Perskie, Poster, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Walker, JJ. 14.
For reversal — None.