HOAGLAND v. SPRINGER


39 N.J. 32 (1962)

186 A.2d 679

ELMER T. HOAGLAND, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM C. SPRINGER, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND CUMMINS ENGINE COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, CUMMINS DIESEL METROPOLITAN, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. DEFENDANTS, AND CUMMINS DIESEL MICHIGAN, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Decided December 17, 1962.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mr. Herman D. Michels argued the cause for defendant-appellant (Mr. John E. Morris, on the brief; Messrs. Toner, Crowley, Woelper & Vanderbilt, attorneys).

Mr. Francis M. Seaman argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent (Mr. Sam Weiss, on the brief; Messrs. Seaman & Clark, attorneys).

Mr. LeRoy H. Mattson argued the cause for defendant-respondent (Messrs. Troast, Mattson & Madden, attorneys).


The opinion of the court was delivered PER CURIAM.

The refusal of the trial court to vacate the service of summons on the defendant Cummins Diesel Michigan, Inc. is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Goldmann in the Appellate Division. 75 N.J.Super. 560 (1962).

Subsequent to the oral argument we were advised by agreement of counsel that on April 11, 1960 Cummins Diesel Michigan, Inc. recorded...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases