From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoblitzell v. Howard

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Mar 28, 1955
112 A.2d 715 (N.J. 1955)

Opinion

Argued March 21, 1955 —

Decided March 28, 1955.

On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, Chancery Division.

Mr. George F. Hetfield argued the cause for the plaintiff-appellant, cross-respondent ( Messrs. Hetfield and Hetfield, attorneys).

Mr. Meyer E. Ruback argued the cause for the defendants-respondents, cross-appellants, W. Franck Howard, William C. Hoblitzell, John E. Toolan and Joseph G. Seaman ( Messrs. Ruback, Albach and Weisman, attorneys).

Mr. Daniel G. Kasen argued the cause for the defendant-respondent, cross-appellant, H.O.B. Motors, Inc., ( Messrs. Kasen, Schnitzer and Kasen, attorneys).


The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Freund in the court below.

For affirmance — Chief Justice VANDERBILT, and Justices HEHER, WACHENFELD, JACOBS and BRENNAN — 5.

For affirmance of disallowance of counsel fees to plaintiff and for reversal with instructions to enter judgment for defendants — Justices OLIPHANT and BURLING — 2.


Summaries of

Hoblitzell v. Howard

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Mar 28, 1955
112 A.2d 715 (N.J. 1955)
Case details for

Hoblitzell v. Howard

Case Details

Full title:WALTER R. HOBLITZELL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, AND CROSS-RESPONDENT, v. W…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Mar 28, 1955

Citations

112 A.2d 715 (N.J. 1955)
112 A.2d 715

Citing Cases

Watson v. Agway Ins. Co.

For tax purposes, a partnership is not a legal entity but merely, an aggregation of individuals who have…