Bielecki v. Max Hertz Leather Co.
131 A. 921, 102 N.J.L. 432, 1926 N.J. LEXIS 184
Opinion
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered in the Supreme Court.
*433 For affirmance — The Chancellor, Trenchard, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Gardner, Van Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, JJ. 13.
For reversal — Rone.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bielecki v. Max Hertz Leather Co., 131 A. 921, 102 N.J.L. 432, 1926 N.J. LEXIS 184 (N.J. 1926).
131 A. 921 (Bielecki v. Max Hertz Leather Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Trecartin v. Mahony-Troast Construction Co.
87 A.2d 349 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1952)
Farrell v. Diamond Alkali Co.
83 A.2d 900 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1951)