Kennedy v. David Kaufman & Sons Co.

92 A. 1086, 86 N.J.L. 685, 1 Gummere 685, 1914 N.J. LEXIS 313
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 16, 1914·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

From the judgment entered pursuant to the foregoing memorandum the plaintiff appeals. The only question presented to the court below was one of statutory construction, and in our opinion the statute was rightly construed by Mr. Justice Bergen with reference to the facts pleaded, and the judgment of the court below will be affirmed, for the reasons stated by him in his memorandum.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Bogekt, Vredenburgh, Heppenheimer, Williams, JJ. 13.

For reversal — Hone.

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

Kennedy v. David Kaufman & Sons Co., 92 A. 1086, 86 N.J.L. 685, 1 Gummere 685, 1914 N.J. LEXIS 313 (N.J. 1914).

92 A. 1086 (Kennedy v. David Kaufman & Sons Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Trecartin v. Mahony-Troast Construction Co.
87 A.2d 349 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1952)