Lobsenz v. Young

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Lobsenz v. Young

124 A. 925, 100 N.J.L. 179, 1924 N.J. LEXIS 220

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lobsenz v. Young. Read the opinion of the Court — 99 N.J.L. 28 →

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided April 25, 1924·Published

Opinion

*180 Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should, be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Trenchard in the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Mtnturn, Kaltsci-i, Black, Katzenbaoit, Campbell. Lloyd, White, Gardner, Van Buskiek, Clark, HcGlennon, JJ'. ‘ 13.

For reversal — None.

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

*180 Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should, be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Trenchard in the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Mtnturn, Kaltsci-i, Black, Katzenbaoit, Campbell. Lloyd, White, Gardner, Van Buskiek, Clark, HcGlennon, JJ'. ‘ 13.

For reversal — None.

Lobsenz v. Young, 124 A. 925, 100 N.J.L. 179, 1924 N.J. LEXIS 220 (N.J. 1924).

Pincite

124 A. 925 (Lobsenz v. Young) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.