Ruddy v. Newark Electric Light & Power Co.
46 A. 1100, 63 N.J.L. 357, 34 Vroom 357, 1899 N.J. LEXIS 83
Opinion
The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, for the reasons given by that court.
For affirmances — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Gummere, Lippincott, Van Syckel, Adams, Hendrickson, Nixon, Vredenburgh. 10.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ruddy v. Newark Electric Light & Power Co., 46 A. 1100, 63 N.J.L. 357, 34 Vroom 357, 1899 N.J. LEXIS 83 (N.J. 1899).
46 A. 1100 (Ruddy v. Newark Electric Light & Power Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Mares v. New Mexico Public Service Co.
82 P.2d 257 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1938)
Diller v. Northern California Power Co.
123 P. 359 (California Supreme Court, 1912)
Aument v. Pennsylvania Telephone Co.
28 Pa. Super. 610 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)