196 A. 679
Court of Errors and Appeals.Submitted October 29, 1937 —
Decided January 26, 1938.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported i 118 N.J.L. 429.
For the plaintiff in error, Joseph C. Cassini.
For the defendant in error, William A. Wachenfeld.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in its opinion. We reserve, however, and do not pass upon, the question of whether the admission in evidence of a certain X-ray photograph was error.
For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, PARKER, LLOYD, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, WALKER, JJ. 12.
For reversal — None.
Page 338
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,…