Braunworth v. Borough of Verona

115 A. 353, 96 N.J.L. 541, 1921 N.J. LEXIS 215
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 14, 1921·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There was a prior’ trial of this cause in which the judge directed a verdict against the plaintiff at the close of the case. This court reversed the judgment entered thereon and held that the issues were entirely of fact and presented jury questions. Braunworth v. Verona, 94 N. J. L. 194. This made the law of the case; and under onr previous decision, the evidence of plaintiff in the case sub judice being substantially that upon the former trial (plus some additional testimony in plaintiffs, favor) the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, which he received. The judgment under review will therefore be affirmed.

For affirmance — Ti-ie Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchaed, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kali,sou. Black, White, Heppenhbimer, Williams, Gardner, Acker,son, Van Buskiek, JJ. 15.

Fov re ver.sal—Kone.

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

Braunworth v. Borough of Verona, 115 A. 353, 96 N.J.L. 541, 1921 N.J. LEXIS 215 (N.J. 1921).

115 A. 353 (Braunworth v. Borough of Verona) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mendiola v. Kijakazi
D. Alaska, 2022
Gruber v. Gruber
51 A.2d 118 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1947)
Warren v. County of Hudson
43 A.2d 785 (Hudson County Superior Court, 1945)
Dwyer v. Dwyer
31 A.2d 812 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1943)
Haynes Bros. Drilling Co. v. Dungan
1933 OK 436 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1933)
Sapulpa Refining Co. v. Boggs
1930 OK 205 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)