Andrews v. Camden & Suburban Railway Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Andrews v. Camden & Suburban Railway Co.

66 A. 1133, 74 N.J.L. 596, 1907 N.J. LEXIS 170

DecidedMarch 4, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A. 1133 (Andrews v. Camden & Suburban Railway Co.) 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

Andrews v. Camden & Suburban Railway Co., 66 A. 1133, 74 N.J.L. 596, 1907 N.J. LEXIS 170 (N.J. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The assignments of error argued before us are conspicuously lacking in merit. The testimony which it is contended was improperly received was clearly. competent, and if the instruction to the jury, as to the method by which they should admeasure the damages in case their verdict .should be for the plaintiff, was inaccurate in the respect pointed out in the assignment, the error was harmful to the plaintiff below rather than to the defendant. ■

The j udgment under review will be affirmed.

For affirmance — Tn® Chancellor, Chief Justice, Fort, Garretson, Hendrickson, Pitney, Swayze; Reed, Trenchard, Bogert, Yredenburgh, Yroom, Green, Dill, J.J. 14.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

The assignments of error argued before us are conspicuously lacking in merit. The testimony which it is contended was improperly received was clearly. competent, and if the instruction to the jury, as to the method by which they should admeasure the damages in case their verdict .should be for the plaintiff, was inaccurate in the respect pointed out in the assignment, the error was harmful to the plaintiff below rather than to the defendant. ■

The j udgment under review will be affirmed.

For affirmance — Tn® Chancellor, Chief Justice, Fort, Garretson, Hendrickson, Pitney, Swayze; Reed, Trenchard, Bogert, Yredenburgh, Yroom, Green, Dill, J.J. 14.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A. 1133, 74 N.J.L. 596, 1907 N.J. LEXIS 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-v-camden-suburban-railway-co-nj-1907.