Brew v. Davidson

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Brew v. Davidson

128 A. 613, 3 N.J. Misc. 434, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 213

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedApril 23, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 128 A. 613 (Brew v. Davidson) 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

Brew v. Davidson, 128 A. 613, 3 N.J. Misc. 434, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 213 (N.J. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cubiam.

This action was brought to recover damages under the Death act. The trial resulted in a verdict of five thousand ($5,000) dollars for the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s intestate was Joseph Brew, a young boy four years eight months and ten days old when he was killed on June the 26th, 1924. He was crossing Harrison avenue, near Bergen avenue, in Jersey Cit3>-, about one o’clock, when he was struck b3’- the defendant’s automobile. The reasons urged for a new trial are, the verdict is against the weight of the evidence and it is excessive. Our reading of the printed book leads us to the conclusion that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence, but it is excessive. If the plaintiff will remit two thousand ($2,000) dollars of the verdict it may stand for three thousand ($3,000) dollars, in which case the rule will be discharged; otherwise the rule will be made absolute and a venire de novo issue.

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

Pee Cubiam.

This action was brought to recover damages under the Death act. The trial resulted in a verdict of five thousand ($5,000) dollars for the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s intestate was Joseph Brew, a young boy four years eight months and ten days old when he was killed on June the 26th, 1924. He was crossing Harrison avenue, near Bergen avenue, in Jersey Cit3>-, about one o’clock, when he was struck b3’- the defendant’s automobile. The reasons urged for a new trial are, the verdict is against the weight of the evidence and it is excessive. Our reading of the printed book leads us to the conclusion that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence, but it is excessive. If the plaintiff will remit two thousand ($2,000) dollars of the verdict it may stand for three thousand ($3,000) dollars, in which case the rule will be discharged; otherwise the rule will be made absolute and a venire de novo issue.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A. 613, 3 N.J. Misc. 434, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brew-v-davidson-nj-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack