Williamsport Planing Mill Co. v. Bd. of Ed., Paterson
This text of 37 A.2d 43 (Williamsport Planing Mill Co. v. Bd. of Ed., Paterson) 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.
Opinion
The conclusions reached by the Supremo Court are sound and the judgment should be affirmed. We think that the Board of Education, which was not a party to Williamsport *487 Planing Mill Co. v. Maryland Casuatty Co., 129 N. J. L. 333, was not estopped by the last mentioned decision in the Supreme Court from arguing for a final acceptance but that the issue was nevertheless meritoriously decided adversely to the contention.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Parker, Case, Donges, Porter, Dear, Wells, Raeeertv, Hague, Thompson. Dill, JJ. 11.
For reversal — Hetlee, Pbrskie, J,T. 2.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
37 A.2d 43, 131 N.J.L. 486, 1944 N.J. LEXIS 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamsport-planing-mill-co-v-bd-of-ed-paterson-nj-1944.