Burkart v. Elliott

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Burkart v. Elliott

142 A. 919, 6 N.J. Misc. 645, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 194

DecidedJune 21, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A. 919 (Burkart v. Elliott) 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

Burkart v. Elliott, 142 A. 919, 6 N.J. Misc. 645, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 194 (N.J. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was an action in the nature of deceit to recover the sum of $1,500, with interest, from November, 1922. The allegation in the complaint is, that the plaintiff gave the defendant the money to be invested in short term first real estate mortgage or mortgages, but, instead of so doing, the defendant appropriated the money to other uses, to wit, $800 was loaned on a promissory note without security and $700 was used by the defendant for the business purposes of the Howard Elliott Corporation, a corporation of which the defendant was president. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,948.25. The defendant obtained a rule to show cause on the grounds that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence and contrary to the charge of the court. Our examination of the case leads us to the conclusion that neither of these grounds for a new trial are tenable. The rule to show cause is therefore discharged, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

This suit was an action in the nature of deceit to recover the sum of $1,500, with interest, from November, 1922. The allegation in the complaint is, that the plaintiff gave the defendant the money to be invested in short term first real estate mortgage or mortgages, but, instead of so doing, the defendant appropriated the money to other uses, to wit, $800 was loaned on a promissory note without security and $700 was used by the defendant for the business purposes of the Howard Elliott Corporation, a corporation of which the defendant was president. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,948.25. The defendant obtained a rule to show cause on the grounds that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence and contrary to the charge of the court. Our examination of the case leads us to the conclusion that neither of these grounds for a new trial are tenable. The rule to show cause is therefore discharged, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A. 919, 6 N.J. Misc. 645, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burkart-v-elliott-nj-1928.