Summary
noting inclusion of unborn fetus but finding that rights of unborn are limited to what is found in statute
Summary of this case from Giardina v. BennettOpinion
Argued February 3, 1944 —
Decided March 23, 1944.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 130 N.J.L. 418.
For the respondent, Hodes Hodes ( Irving L. Hodes).
For the appellant, Thomas J. Brett and Edwin Joseph O'Brien.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court; reserving, however, any expression as to the rights of an unborn child not within the statutory provision. See Stemmer v. Kline, 128 N.J.L. 455 .
For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, PARKER, CASE, DONGES, PERSKIE, PORTER, DEAR, HAGUE, THOMPSON, DILL, JJ. 10.
For reversal — HEHER, WELLS, RAFFERTY, JJ. 3.