Hartman v. McClintic-Marshall Construction Co.
82 A. 874, 82 N.J.L. 734, 53 Vroom 734, 1912 N.J. LEXIS 293
This text of 82 A. 874 (Hartman v. McClintic-Marshall Construction Co.) 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
Hartman v. McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., 82 A. 874, 82 N.J.L. 734, 53 Vroom 734, 1912 N.J. LEXIS 293 (N.J. 1912).
Opinion
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance—The Chancellor, Garrison, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Kaijsch, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Congdon, White, Treacy, JJ. 13.
For reversal—None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
82 A. 874, 82 N.J.L. 734, 53 Vroom 734, 1912 N.J. LEXIS 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartman-v-mcclintic-marshall-construction-co-nj-1912.