Alexander Dye Works v. Roufosse

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Alexander Dye Works v. Roufosse

32 A. 373, 57 N.J.L. 700, 28 Vroom 700, 1895 N.J. LEXIS 46

DecidedMarch 15, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A. 373 (Alexander Dye Works v. Roufosse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander Dye Works v. Roufosse, 32 A. 373, 57 N.J.L. 700, 28 Vroom 700, 1895 N.J. LEXIS 46 (N.J. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garrison, J.

"We have examined the assignments of error in connection with the record and the bills of exception, and find no legal impropriety'in the trial below, either in what the court did or in what it “refused to do. The case called for the application of the ordinary rules concerning the relation of master and servant. The facts to which the rules were applied were unusual and fairly susceptible of a construction that would lay the blame at the plaintiff’s own door. The failure of the jury to take this view of the facts is the real ground of complaint. There being no legal error, the judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Gummere, Lippincott, Magie, Reed, Van Syckel, Bogert, Brown. 10.

For reversal — Hone.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garrison, J.

"We have examined the assignments of error in connection with the record and the bills of exception, and find no legal impropriety'in the trial below, either in what the court did or in what it “refused to do. The case called for the application of the ordinary rules concerning the relation of master and servant. The facts to which the rules were applied were unusual and fairly susceptible of a construction that would lay the blame at the plaintiff’s own door. The failure of the jury to take this view of the facts is the real ground of complaint. There being no legal error, the judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Gummere, Lippincott, Magie, Reed, Van Syckel, Bogert, Brown. 10.

For reversal — Hone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A. 373, 57 N.J.L. 700, 28 Vroom 700, 1895 N.J. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-dye-works-v-roufosse-nj-1895.