O'Brien v. Central R.R. Co. of N.J.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

O'Brien v. Central R.R. Co. of N.J.

148 A. 919, 106 N.J.L. 585, 1930 N.J. LEXIS 244

DecidedFebruary 3, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 148 A. 919 (O'Brien v. Central R.R. Co. of N.J.) 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

O'Brien v. Central R.R. Co. of N.J., 148 A. 919, 106 N.J.L. 585, 1930 N.J. LEXIS 244 (N.J. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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

We have not failed to observe that the appeal states as a ground of error that the Supreme Court considered the appeal as a rule to show cause. It did not. The opinion states that it is “on appeal from the Hudson County Circuit Court.” It ends with the assertion that “the rule to show cause will be discharged, with costs.” The case is not considered as on rule to show cause at all, but as on appeal throughout, and the conclusion of the opinion is an obvious mistake. It of course intended to state, “the judgment of the court below will be affirmed, with costs.” And we have so treated it.

*586 For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisch, Bodine, Van Buskirk, MoGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

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

We have not failed to observe that the appeal states as a ground of error that the Supreme Court considered the appeal as a rule to show cause. It did not. The opinion states that it is “on appeal from the Hudson County Circuit Court.” It ends with the assertion that “the rule to show cause will be discharged, with costs.” The case is not considered as on rule to show cause at all, but as on appeal throughout, and the conclusion of the opinion is an obvious mistake. It of course intended to state, “the judgment of the court below will be affirmed, with costs.” And we have so treated it.

*586 For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisch, Bodine, Van Buskirk, MoGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A. 919, 106 N.J.L. 585, 1930 N.J. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-central-rr-co-of-nj-nj-1930.