139 A. 718
Court of Errors and Appeals.Argued October 20, 1927 —
Decided December 23, 1927.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported i 103 N.J.L. 23.
The judges being equally divided on the question whether the judgment should be reversed, the judgment is affirmed solely because of such division, which renders any opinion by the court impossible.
For the appellant, Edward L. Katzenbach, attorney general.
For the respondent, Martin P. Devlin.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment herein is affirmed by an equally divided court.
For affirmance — KATZENBACH, CAMPBELL, LLOYD, WHITE, KAYS, DEAR, JJ. 6.
For reversal — PARKER, KALISCH, BLACK, VAN BUSKIRK, McGLENNON, HETFIELD, JJ. 6.
Page 176
64 N.J.L. 99 THE STATE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR v. ALBERT J. ACKERMAN, DEFENDANT BELOW, PLAINTIFF…
SYLLABUS (This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court.? It has been…
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION (January 25, 2017) SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY CHANCERY DIVISION, ESSEX COUNTY…
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, ESSEX COUNTY STATE OF NEW JERSEY,…
811 A.2d 909 IN THE MATTER OF MARTIN C. LATINSKY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.Supreme Court…
669 A.2d 1378 GLORIA YUN, ADMINISTRATOR AD PROSEQUENDUM OF THE ESTATE OF CHANG HAK YUN,…