Hinchliffe v. Loughlin
22 A.2d 240, 127 N.J.L. 309, 1941 N.J. LEXIS 268
Opinion
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Heher in the Supreme Court.
For a,ffirmance — The Chief Justice, Parker, Bodine, Perseus, Porter, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 11.
For reversal — The Chancellor, Colie, JJ. 2.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hinchliffe v. Loughlin, 22 A.2d 240, 127 N.J.L. 309, 1941 N.J. LEXIS 268 (N.J. 1941).
22 A.2d 240 (Hinchliffe v. Loughlin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bayonne v. Ferenczi
139 A.2d 315 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1958)
Community Development Co., Inc. v. Seaside Gardens, Inc.
81 A.2d 14 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1951)