Cadgene v. Cadgene
This text of 12 A.2d 635 (Cadgene v. Cadgene) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
12 A.2d 635, 124 N.J.L. 566, 1940 N.J. LEXIS 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadgene-v-cadgene-nj-1940.