Humphrey v. Eakeley

65 A. 1118, 74 N.J.L. 599, 45 Vroom 599, 1907 N.J. LEXIS 174
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedJanuary 2, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 65 A. 1118 (Humphrey v. Eakeley) 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
Humphrey v. Eakeley, 65 A. 1118, 74 N.J.L. 599, 45 Vroom 599, 1907 N.J. LEXIS 174 (N.J. 1907).

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

The judgment brought here by this writ óf error is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Garrison in the Supreme Court, reported in 43 Vroom 425.

For affirmance — Ti-ie Chancellor, Ci-iiee Justice, Fort, Garretson, Hendrickson, Pitney, Eeed, Trenci-iard, Bogert, Vredenburgii, Vroom, Green, Gray, Dill, J.J. 14.

For reversal — None.

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

Related

Better Home Furniture Co. of Winston-Salem v. Baron
91 S.E.2d 236 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 A. 1118, 74 N.J.L. 599, 45 Vroom 599, 1907 N.J. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humphrey-v-eakeley-nj-1907.