PER CURIAM.
The legal situation in this case is similar to that which was considered by this court at length in Zuest v. Ingra, decided on January 31st, 1946. Our opinion in that case is reported in 134 N.J.L. 15.
For the reasons stated in that opinion, the judgment under review will be reversed.
For affirmance — None.
For reversal — THE CHANCELLOR, PARKER, DONGES, HEHER, COLIE, OLIPHANT, WELLS, RAFFERTY, DILL, FREUND, McGEEHAN, JJ. 11.