Thomas v. Liondale Bleach, Dye & Print Works 110 N.J.L. 27

110 N.J.L. 27

JAMES THOMAS, RESPONDENT, v. LIONDALE BLEACH, DYE AND PRINT WORKS, APPELLANT.

Argued October 26, 1932

Decided January 23, 1933.

For the respondent, John C. Grimshaw.

For the appellant, Kellogg & Chance.

Pee Cueiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered per curiam in the Supreme Court, and printed in 10 N. J. Mis. R. 255.

For affirmance — The Chancelloe, Pabicee, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Beogan, Hehee, Kays, Hetfield, Wells, Keeney, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.

Thomas v. Liondale Bleach, Dye & Print Works
110 N.J.L. 27

Case Details

Name
Thomas v. Liondale Bleach, Dye & Print Works
Decision Date
Jan 23, 1933
Citations

110 N.J.L. 27

Jurisdiction
New Jersey
Court
New Jersey Supreme Court

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!