De Raismes v. Cahill , 97 N.J.L. 565 ( 1922 )

Per Curiam.

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

For affirmance — ’The Chancellor, Chibe Justice, Swayze, Parker, Kalisci-i, Black, Katzenraci-i, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Gardner, Ackerson, Van Buskirk, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None. .