Thomas v. Liondale Bleach, Dye & Print Works

164 A. 11, 110 N.J.L. 27, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 423
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedJanuary 23, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 164 A. 11 (Thomas v. Liondale Bleach, Dye & Print Works) 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
Thomas v. Liondale Bleach, Dye & Print Works, 164 A. 11, 110 N.J.L. 27, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 423 (N.J. 1933).

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered per curiam in the Supreme Court, and printed in 10 N. J. Mis. R. 255.

For affirmance — The Chancelloe, Pabicee, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Beogan, Hehee, Kays, Hetfield, Wells, Keeney, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.

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

Related

Federal Leather Co. v. Derensis
174 A. 163 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1934)
Federated Metals Corp. v. Boyko
168 A. 672 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
164 A. 11, 110 N.J.L. 27, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-liondale-bleach-dye-print-works-nj-1933.