Hammel v. Van Sickle

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

Court: Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Mar 16, 1925

101 N.J.L. 402 (N.J. 1925)

128 A. 247

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.

PER CURIAM.

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.