Vanderbilt v. Mial , 86 N.J.L. 375 ( 1914 )

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons firstly and secondly expressed in the opinion delivered by the Chancellor in the case of Davis v. Mial, at the present term of this court, ante p. 167.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalis on, Bogert, Yredenburgii, Congdon, White, Heppenheimer, JJ. 13.

For reversal — Hone.