Hanchett v. O'Reilly

74 A. 1135, 78 N.J.L. 555, 1909 N.J. LEXIS 261
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedNovember 15, 1909
StatusPublished

This text of 74 A. 1135 (Hanchett v. O'Reilly) 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.

Bluebook
Hanchett v. O'Reilly, 74 A. 1135, 78 N.J.L. 555, 1909 N.J. LEXIS 261 (N.J. 1909).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Voorhees in that court.

This does not involve an approval of the measure of damages adopted in the trial court. Counsel for plaintiff in error has raised here only the question of liability, and not any question of the extent of the damages.

Let the judgment under review be affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Reed, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Gray, Dill, Congdon, JJ. 14.

For reversa'l — None.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 A. 1135, 78 N.J.L. 555, 1909 N.J. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanchett-v-oreilly-nj-1909.