Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

WILLIAM VOESSLER, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. PALM FETCHTELER COMPANY,RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Case in the Supreme Court. Under its seventh point the appellant calls our attention to Pamph. L. 1938, ch. 198, p. 474 ( R.S. 34:15-94, 95 and 95.1). This amendment was approved May 18th, 1938, and went into effect immediately. The cause here under consideration was submitted to the Supreme Court at the May term, 1938. The amendment does not affect the judgment in this cause because it is not retroactive.

For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, PARKER, BODINE, HEHER, PERSKIE, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

VOESSLER v. PALM FETCHTELER CO
(Apr 21, 1939)