City of Camden v. Barrett

Supreme Court of New Jersey

City of Camden v. Barrett

86 A. 449, 84 N.J.L. 405, 55 Vroom 405, 1913 N.J. LEXIS 190

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided March 3, 1913·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The important question in this case is disposed of in the opinion in Camden v. Public Service Railway Co., ante p. 305. The only additional question is whether Barrett came within the provisions of the ordinance. We agree with the Supreme Court that he did.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — Ti-ie Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Bogert, Vre-DENIiURGH, CONGDON, TREACY, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

The important question in this case is disposed of in the opinion in Camden v. Public Service Railway Co., ante p. 305. The only additional question is whether Barrett came within the provisions of the ordinance. We agree with the Supreme Court that he did.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — Ti-ie Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Bogert, Vre-DENIiURGH, CONGDON, TREACY, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.

City of Camden v. Barrett, 86 A. 449, 84 N.J.L. 405, 55 Vroom 405, 1913 N.J. LEXIS 190 (N.J. 1913).

Pincite

86 A. 449 (City of Camden v. Barrett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.