Kountze v. Proprietors of the Morris Aqueduct
LUTHER KOUNTZE, IN ERROR v. THE PROPRIETORS OF THE MORRIS AQUEDUCT, IN ERROR
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The legal questions involved in this ease were, we think, rightly dealt with in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The matters of fact decided in that court are not subject to review in the Court of Errors.
The judgment below must be affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief • Justice, Depue, Dixon, Gummere, Ludlow, Barkalow, Bogert, Nixon. 9.
For reversal—None.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 21 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals1
- Federal District Courts1
- State Highest Courts12
- State Appellate Courts5
- State Trial Courts2
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.