Opinion · Njlaw New Jersey

OLIVER v. KANTOR, 124 N.J.L. 131 (1940)

ELEANOR OLIVER, RESPONDENT, v. MacKINLAY KANTOR ET AL., APPELLANTS., 10 A.2d 732 (Ct. Err. & App. 1940)

Type
Opinion
Court
Njlaw New Jersey
Jurisdiction
Njlaw
Date
1940-01-25
Topic
general

OLIVER v. KANTOR, 124 N.J.L. 131 (1940) 10 A.2d 732 ELEANOR OLIVER, RESPONDENT, v. MacKINLAY KANTOR ET AL., APPELLANTS.Court of Errors and Appeals.Submitted October 27, 1939 — Decided January 25, 1940. On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in122 N.J.L. 528. For the appellants, Townsend Doyle.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed OLIVER v. KANTOR, 124 N.J.L. 131 (1940). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

OLIVER v. KANTOR,124 N.J.L. 131(1940)
10 A.2d 732
ELEANOR OLIVER, RESPONDENT, v. MacKINLAY KANTOR ET AL., APPELLANTS.
Court of Errors and Appeals.
Submitted October 27, 1939 —
Decided January 25, 1940.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in122 N.J.L. 528.
For the appellants,Townsend Doyle.

For the respondent,William K. Flanagan.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment under review should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Heher in the Supreme Court.For affirmance— THE CHANCELLOR, TRENCHARD, CASE, DONGES, PERSKIE, PORTER, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, JJ. 12.For reversal— None.