No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.
The Chancellor.
The charge in this case was in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, upon the rule to show cause why the first verdict should not be set aside and a new trial ordered. Ingwersen v. Rankin, 18 Vroom 18. I concur in the views there expressed by that court, and therefore am of opinion that there is no error in the record before us. The judgment should be affirmed.
Dixon, J.,
(dissenting.) After the opinion of the Supreme Court in this case was rendered, a second trial was had, on which a substantially different state of facts appeared, giving rise to a different question of law. On this legal question, I think the present judgment is erroneous. For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Magie, Parker, Reed, Scudder, Yan Syckel, Brown, Clement, Cole, McGregor, Whitaker. 12.
For reversal — Depue, Dixon, Paterson. 3.
