Decided: May 14, 1936.
MAURICE TEITELBAUM, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
MASSACHUSETTS ACCIDENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; MAURICE TEITELBAUM, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V. MASSACHUSETTS ACCIDENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is printed in 13 N.J. Mis. R. 811.
For the defendant-appellant, Herman E. Dultz.
For the plaintiff-respondent, Kanter & Kanter (Charles Kanter).
[116 NJL Page 417]
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered in the Supreme Court. It should, however, be noted that the plaintiff below admitted that he treated about four patients a week and not four patients a day as inadvertently stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance -- THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, JJ. 10.
For reversal -- None.