Wilday v. Panas
3 A.2d 619, 122 N.J.L. 28, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 298
Opinion
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion delivered per curiam by the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, PIeteield, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeerty, Walker, JJ. 12.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Wilday v. Panas, 3 A.2d 619, 122 N.J.L. 28, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 298 (N.J. 1939).
3 A.2d 619 (Wilday v. Panas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
PH. Chaleyer, Inc. v. Simon
91 F. Supp. 5 (D. New Jersey, 1950)
Campanelli v. Vescera
63 A.2d 722 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1949)