Mergel v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co.
126 A.2d 392, 22 N.J. 453
This text of 126 A.2d 392 (Mergel v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co.) 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
Mergel v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co., 126 A.2d 392, 22 N.J. 453 (N.J. 1956).
Opinion
SOPHIE MERGEL, ADMINISTRATRIX, ETC., PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER,
v.
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE-PEET CO., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Mr. Robert C. Gruhin and Mr. Morris Edelstein for the petitioner.
Messrs. Shaw, Pindar, McElroy & Connell for the respondent.
Denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Mergel v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co.
126 A.2d 392 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1956)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
126 A.2d 392, 22 N.J. 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mergel-v-colgate-palmolive-peet-co-nj-1956.