Doherty v. Catskill Cement Co.

65 A. 508, 72 N.J.L. 315, 43 Vroom 315, 1905 N.J. LEXIS 127
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 20, 1905·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court brought here by this writ of error affirmed a judgment of the Hudson Circuit Court, entered upon a demurrer to a declaration.

The demurrer presented the same question that was presented to the Supreme Court in the case of Hill v. Nelson, 41 Vroom 376. We approve of the doctrine of the Supreme Court in that case and deem it applicable to the demurrer in this case.

The same doctrine was stated by the Circuit Court judge in his opinion sustaining the demurrer.

For this reason, we think the judgment of the Supreme Court, affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court, should be affirmed.

[316]*316For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Dixon, Garrison, Fort, Garretson, Pitney, Swayze, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Green/ Gray. 13. For reversal — None.

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

Doherty v. Catskill Cement Co., 65 A. 508, 72 N.J.L. 315, 43 Vroom 315, 1905 N.J. LEXIS 127 (N.J. 1905).

65 A. 508 (Doherty v. Catskill Cement Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Minichiello Realty Associates, Inc. v. Britt
460 F. Supp. 896 (D. New Jersey, 1978)
Taylor v. Sommers Bros. Match
204 P. 472 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1922)
Defiance Fruit Co. v. Fox
70 A. 460 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1908)