Thomas v. Liondale Bleach, Dye & Print Works
164 A. 11 | N.J. | 1933
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 CHANCELLOR, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, BROGAN, HEHER, KAYS, HETFIELD, WELLS, KERNEY, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None. *28