Corporations
O'GORMAN & YOUNG, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLANT, v. PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, OF LONDON, A CORPORATION OF GREAT BRITAIN, RESPONDENT; O'GORMAN & YOUNG, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLANT, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, RESPONDENT
105 N.J.L. 642·New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals·1929·NJ
Brief incoming
Source-anchored Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
O’GORMAN & YOUNG, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLANT, v. PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, OF LONDON, A CORPORATION OF GREAT BRITAIN, RESPONDENT. O’GORMAN & YOUNG, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLANT, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, RESPONDENT.
Argued February 19, 1929
Decided May 20, 1929.
For the appellant, Pilgrim & Bitger.
For the respondents, Lum, Tamblyn & Colyer.
[MAJORITY — Pee Curiam.]
Pee Curiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion by Judge Dungan in the Circuit Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisch, Black, McGlennon, Kays, JJ. 8.
For reversal — Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Van Buskiek, Hetfield, Dear, JJ. 6.