Howell v. State
43 A. 1098, 61 N.J.L. 694, 32 Vroom 694, 1898 N.J. LEXIS 32
Opinion
The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, for the reasons given by that court.
For affirmance—The Chancellor, Depue, Gummeke, Lippincott, Van Syckel, Adams, Bogert, Hendrickson, Krueger, Nixon, Vredenburgh. 11.
For reversal—None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Howell v. State, 43 A. 1098, 61 N.J.L. 694, 32 Vroom 694, 1898 N.J. LEXIS 32 (N.J. 1898).
43 A. 1098 (Howell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Szczesny v. Vasquez
177 A.2d 47 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1962)
Fentron Architectural Metals Corp. v. Romagnino
174 A.2d 491 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1961)
Garnick v. Serewitch
121 A.2d 423 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1956)
Fritz v. Pennsylvania Fire Insurance
88 A. 1065 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1913)
State v. MacFarland
83 A. 993 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1912)
Point Pleasant Electric Light & Power Co. v. Borough of Bayhead
49 A. 1108 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1901)