Boyette v. United States Savings Bank

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Boyette v. United States Savings Bank

192 A. 43, 15 N.J. Misc. 412, 1937 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 147

DecidedMay 17, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A. 43 (Boyette v. United States Savings Bank) 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

Boyette v. United States Savings Bank, 192 A. 43, 15 N.J. Misc. 412, 1937 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 147 (N.J. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of the defendant entered in the Second District Court of the city of Newark by the judge of that court, sitting without a jury, following a trial in which plaintiff and defendant had submitted their several factual proofs.

The action was to recover damages for personal injury sustained by the plaintiff as a result of being struck by a mass of snow as he was walking along the highway. Plaintiff was the single witness in his own behalf. He testified to facts from which it might be inferred but was not demonstrated that the snow fell from some portion of the defendant’s building. He also testified that he did not in fact know where it came from. It was within the fact-finding power of the judge to determine that the plaintiff had not proved that the snow came from the defendant’s premises. If it be assumed that the snow did fall from the defendant’s building, the next question [413]*413is whether defendant had done or failed to do something whereby lie became chargeable. The contention of the plaintiff in this respect was that the snow had fallen because of the improper construction of the cornice on defendant’s building. That was a controverted question of fact inasmuch as there was expert testimony introduced by the defendant to the effect that the construction was proper, normal and standard.

The findings of fact by the trial judge are supported by the evidence and therefore are not reviewable on appeal. Lapayowker v. Levitzky, 102 N. J. L. 164; 130 Atl. Rep. 627. Further, the specification of determinations failed to point out the precise judicial action complained of, and the appeal therefore presents no point for the consideration of this court. Booth v. Keegan, 108 N. J. L. 538; 159 Atl. Rep. 402.

The judgment below will be affirmed.

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

Pee Cueiam.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of the defendant entered in the Second District Court of the city of Newark by the judge of that court, sitting without a jury, following a trial in which plaintiff and defendant had submitted their several factual proofs.

The action was to recover damages for personal injury sustained by the plaintiff as a result of being struck by a mass of snow as he was walking along the highway. Plaintiff was the single witness in his own behalf. He testified to facts from which it might be inferred but was not demonstrated that the snow fell from some portion of the defendant’s building. He also testified that he did not in fact know where it came from. It was within the fact-finding power of the judge to determine that the plaintiff had not proved that the snow came from the defendant’s premises. If it be assumed that the snow did fall from the defendant’s building, the next question [413]*413is whether defendant had done or failed to do something whereby lie became chargeable. The contention of the plaintiff in this respect was that the snow had fallen because of the improper construction of the cornice on defendant’s building. That was a controverted question of fact inasmuch as there was expert testimony introduced by the defendant to the effect that the construction was proper, normal and standard.

The findings of fact by the trial judge are supported by the evidence and therefore are not reviewable on appeal. Lapayowker v. Levitzky, 102 N. J. L. 164; 130 Atl. Rep. 627. Further, the specification of determinations failed to point out the precise judicial action complained of, and the appeal therefore presents no point for the consideration of this court. Booth v. Keegan, 108 N. J. L. 538; 159 Atl. Rep. 402.

The judgment below will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A. 43, 15 N.J. Misc. 412, 1937 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyette-v-united-states-savings-bank-nj-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack