LAW.coLAW.co

NATHAN ROSENBERG, APPELLANT, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, RESPONDENT

New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals1926-04-01
102 N.J.L. 724

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

Pee Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered in the Supreme’ Court. For affirmance■ — Trenchard, Kalisch, Katzenbach, Campbell, White, Gardner, Van Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, JJ. 10. For reversal — None.