Margolis v. Pinnas
124 A. 529, 99 N.J.L. 515, 1924 N.J. LEXIS 178
Opinion
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Parker, Minturn. Kalisoh, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, White, Gardner, Van Buskirk, Clark, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Margolis v. Pinnas, 124 A. 529, 99 N.J.L. 515, 1924 N.J. LEXIS 178 (N.J. 1924).
124 A. 529 (Margolis v. Pinnas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Theodore the Florist Co. v. DA Schulte, Inc.
90 A.2d 898 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1952)
Rosenberg v. Reisman
153 A. 839 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1931)