STATE BY RICHMAN v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Ctjbiam.
The judgment of the Appellate Division, 56 N. J. Super. 589, is affirmed essentially for the reasons stated in its opinion. We add that we cannot find in the record sufficient evidence of specifically identifiable property subject to escheat or custody under the statutes, N. J. S. 2A :37-13 et seq., or N. J. S. 2A :37-29 et seq.
For affirmance—Chief Justice Weintbaub, and Justices Bubling, Jacobs, Feancis, Peoctoe, Hall and Schettino—7.
For reversal—None.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1959
3Cited by12 opinions
- Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Co. v. McNamaraSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1990
- Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. O'CONNORSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Liptak v. Rite Aid, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1996
- State v. Elsinore Shore AssociatesNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1991
- In re the November 8, 1996New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1998
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.