Cleaves v. Yeskel

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Cleaves v. Yeskel

139 A. 924, 5 N.J. Misc. 964, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 73

DecidedOctober 27, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A. 924 (Cleaves v. Yeskel) 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

Cleaves v. Yeskel, 139 A. 924, 5 N.J. Misc. 964, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 73 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover damages under the Death act. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $15,000. The defendant obtained a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside reserving to the defendant the exceptions taken at the trial. The defendant writes down five reasons for the granting of a new trial. The first four allege the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, and the fifth alleges the verdict of the jury is contrary to the charge of the court.

This is the second trial of this case. Cleaves v. Yeskel, 133 Atl. Rep. 393. There the essential facts are quite fully set out in the opinion of Mr. Justice Minturn, although there is some difference in the facts as made at the two trials. We are unwilling to disturb the verdict for any of the reasons alleged for a new trial.

The rule to show cause is therefore discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover damages under the Death act. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $15,000. The defendant obtained a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside reserving to the defendant the exceptions taken at the trial. The defendant writes down five reasons for the granting of a new trial. The first four allege the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, and the fifth alleges the verdict of the jury is contrary to the charge of the court.

This is the second trial of this case. Cleaves v. Yeskel, 133 Atl. Rep. 393. There the essential facts are quite fully set out in the opinion of Mr. Justice Minturn, although there is some difference in the facts as made at the two trials. We are unwilling to disturb the verdict for any of the reasons alleged for a new trial.

The rule to show cause is therefore discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A. 924, 5 N.J. Misc. 964, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleaves-v-yeskel-nj-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack