Howard v. W.J. S.R.R. Co.
144 A. 919, 104 N.J. Eq. 201, 1929 N.J. LEXIS 504
Opinion
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Leaming, and reported in
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, KATZENBACH, CAMPBELL, LLOYD, WHITE, VAN BUSKIRK, McGLENNON, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, JJ. 12.
For reversal — None. *Page 202
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Howard v. W.J. S.R.R. Co., 144 A. 919, 104 N.J. Eq. 201, 1929 N.J. LEXIS 504 (N.J. 1929).
144 A. 919 (Howard v. W.J. S.R.R. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Price v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co.
846 A.2d 617 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2004)
Ellen S. Barry v. Honoria Donnelly, William Donnelly
781 F.2d 1040 (Fourth Circuit, 1986)
City of Bedford v. The James Leffel & Co.
558 F.2d 216 (Fourth Circuit, 1977)
Rocco D. Longo v. The Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, New York Central System
355 F.2d 443 (Third Circuit, 1966)
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Wilson
372 P.2d 551 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1962)
Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal
359 U.S. 231 (Supreme Court, 1959)
Renault v. L. N. Renault & Sons, Inc.
90 F. Supp. 630 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1950)
Albachten v. Bradley
3 N.W.2d 783 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1942)
Penny v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
258 N.W. 522 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1934)
Pamozzo v. Carborundum Co.
7 F. Supp. 317 (W.D. New York, 1934)