From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hammel v. Van Sickle

Court of Errors and Appeals
Mar 16, 1925
101 N.J.L. 402 (N.J. 1925)

Opinion

Submitted February 9, 1925 —

Decided March 16, 1925.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose per curiam is printed in 2 N.J. Mis. R. 461.

For the appellant, Freeman Woodbridge.

For the respondent, Peter Backes.


The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, MINTURN, BLACK, CAMPBELL, WHITE, GARDNER, VAN BUSKIRK, CLARK, McGLENNON, KAYS, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Hammel v. Van Sickle

Court of Errors and Appeals
Mar 16, 1925
101 N.J.L. 402 (N.J. 1925)
Case details for

Hammel v. Van Sickle

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE HAMMEL, APPELLANT, v. JESSE VAN SICKLE, RESPONDENT

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Mar 16, 1925

Citations

101 N.J.L. 402 (N.J. 1925)
128 A. 247

Citing Cases

Coba v. Ford Motor Co.

Thus, in the context of product development, defects in "workmanship" and "materials" are flaws pertaining to…

Coba v. Ford Motor Co.

Thus, in the context of product development, defects in "workmanship" and "materials" are flaws pertaining to…