Levine v. Blumenthal

189 A. 54, 117 N.J.L. 426, 1937 N.J. LEXIS 189
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided January 22, 1937·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The facts, and the arguments thereon, adequately appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court, ubi supra. We find ourselves unable to perceive the distinction in principle or in essential facts, between this case and the recent decision of this court in Haynes Auto Repair Co. v. Wheels, Inc., 115 N. J. L. 447, a unanimous decision of this court.

The judgment under review will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Cole, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.

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

Levine v. Blumenthal, 189 A. 54, 117 N.J.L. 426, 1937 N.J. LEXIS 189 (N.J. 1937).

189 A. 54 (Levine v. Blumenthal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Oscar v. Simeonidis
800 A.2d 271 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2002)
Continental Bank v. Barclay Riding Academy, Inc.
459 A.2d 1163 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1983)
Novack v. CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY
374 A.2d 89 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1977)
Massey v. Del-Valley Corp.
134 A.2d 802 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1957)
MN Axinn Co. v. Gibraltar Development, Inc.
133 A.2d 341 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1957)
Lutz v. Goldberg
73 A.2d 65 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1950)
Ross v. Orr
69 A.2d 730 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1949)