Salsman v. NAT. COMMUNITY BANK OF RUTHERFORD
This text of 251 A.2d 460 (Salsman v. NAT. COMMUNITY BANK OF RUTHERFORD) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ELIZABETH A. SALSMAN (FORMERLY ELIZABETH A. ODGERS), INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ARTHUR J. ODGERS, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
NATIONAL COMMUNITY BANK OF RUTHERFORD, A BANKING CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,
v.
HAROLD BRESLOW AND THE FIDELITY AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Before Judges SULLIVAN, FOLEY and LEWIS.
Mr. William R. Morrison argued the cause for appellant (Messrs. Morrison, Lloyd & Griggs, attorneys).
Mr. John R. Weigel argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. James L.R. Lafferty and James L. McKeon, Jr. of counsel; Messrs. Lafferty, Rowe, McMahon & McKeon, attorneys).
*165 PER CURIAM.
The judgment herein is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Botter in his opinion reported at 102 N.J. Super. 482 (Law Div. 1968).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
251 A.2d 460, 105 N.J. Super. 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salsman-v-nat-community-bank-of-rutherford-njsuperctappdiv-1969.