ALLORD v. HENRY MUHS CO | N.J. | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem

AMICUS AI

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

For the petitioner-respondent, W. Reading
For the respondent-appellant, Cox Walburg ( Harry E. Walburg
Arthur F. Mead, of counsel).

Judges

PER CURIAM.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

For the petitioner-respondent, W. Reading
For the respondent-appellant, Cox Walburg ( Harry E. Walburg
Arthur F. Mead, of counsel).

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

ARTHUR ALLORD, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. THE HENRY MUHS COMPANY,RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under review herein is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the per curiam opinion filed in the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, CASE, HEHER, PERSKIE, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, DILL, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments