Waterman v. Taub , 102 N.J.L. 472 ( 1926 )

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered in the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, White, Gardner, Van Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.