Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1910

Christiansen v. W. H. & F. W. Cane

Christiansen v. W. H. & F. W. Cane
Supreme Court of New Jersey · Decided September 16, 1910
80 N.J.L. 460; 51 Vroom 460; 77 A. 517; 1910 N.J. LEXIS 235

Christiansen v. W. H. & F. W. Cane

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Eo bill of exceptions has been filed with the writ of error, and although the attention of counsel was called to the defect upon the argument, the lack has not been supplied. Eo error has been made to appear to us and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenohard, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Minturn, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Gray, Dill, Congdon, JJ. 14.

For reversal—Eone.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.