Boland v. Kaveny

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Boland v. Kaveny

62 A. 552, 72 N.J.L. 314, 43 Vroom 314, 1905 N.J. LEXIS 125

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Boland v. Kaveny. Read the opinion of the Court — 71 N.J.L. 488 →

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 20, 1905·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The state of the case discloses no record except of an order of the Supreme Court affirming a judgment of a District Court. There is no transcript, or pleadings, or state of the case. In this condition of the record before us, we think the writ of error should be dismissed.

For dismissal — The Chancellor, Chief J ustice, Dixon, Garrison, Garretson, Swayze, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Green. 10.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The state of the case discloses no record except of an order of the Supreme Court affirming a judgment of a District Court. There is no transcript, or pleadings, or state of the case. In this condition of the record before us, we think the writ of error should be dismissed.

For dismissal — The Chancellor, Chief J ustice, Dixon, Garrison, Garretson, Swayze, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Green. 10.

Boland v. Kaveny, 62 A. 552, 72 N.J.L. 314, 43 Vroom 314, 1905 N.J. LEXIS 125 (N.J. 1905).

Pincite

62 A. 552 (Boland v. Kaveny) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.