Opinion · Njlaw New Jersey

PRALL v. U.S. LEATHER CO., 105 N.J.L. 646 (1929)

HORACE G. PRALL ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. UNITED STATES LEATHER COMPANY,RESPONDENT., 146 A. 916 (Ct. Err. & App. 1929)

Type: Opinion
Court: Njlaw New Jersey
Jurisdiction: Njlaw
Date: 1929-05-20
Topic: general

PRALL v. U.S. LEATHER CO., 105 N.J.L. 646 (1929) 146 A. 916 HORACE G. PRALL ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. THE UNITED STATES LEATHER COMPANY,RESPONDENT.Court of Errors and Appeals.Argued February 13, 1929 — Decided May 20, 1929.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed PRALL v. U.S. LEATHER CO., 105 N.J.L. 646 (1929). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

PRALL v. U.S. LEATHER CO.,105 N.J.L. 646(1929)

146 A. 916

HORACE G. PRALL ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. THE UNITED STATES LEATHER COMPANY,

RESPONDENT.

Court of Errors and Appeals.

Argued February 13, 1929 —

Decided May 20, 1929.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whoseper curiamis printed in6 N.J. Mis. R. 967.

For the appellants,Walter L. McDermott.

For the respondent,Pitney, Hardin Skinner.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court.For affirmance— THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, PARKER, KALISCH, LLOYD, WHITE, VAN BUSKIRK, McGLENNON, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, JJ. 11.For reversal— None.Page 647