Scheinman v. Bloch
119 A. 926, 98 N.J.L. 571, 1923 N.J. LEXIS 258
Opinion
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Parker in the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Minturn, Black, Katzenbach, White, Heppenhetmer, Williams, Gardner, Ackérson, Van Buskirk, JJ. 13.
For reversad — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Scheinman v. Bloch, 119 A. 926, 98 N.J.L. 571, 1923 N.J. LEXIS 258 (N.J. 1923).
119 A. 926 (Scheinman v. Bloch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Kirzenbaum v. Paulus
153 A.2d 847 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1959)
Vogel v. Rogers
108 A.2d 448 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1954)
Loeffler v. Roe
69 So. 2d 331 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1953)