Waterman v. Taub
131 A. 924, 102 N.J.L. 472, 1926 N.J. LEXIS 202
Opinion
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered in the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, White, Gardner, Van Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Waterman v. Taub, 131 A. 924, 102 N.J.L. 472, 1926 N.J. LEXIS 202 (N.J. 1926).
131 A. 924 (Waterman v. Taub) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Loeffler v. Roe
69 So. 2d 331 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1953)