Cornicoff v. Hoffman

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Cornicoff v. Hoffman

142 A. 919, 6 N.J. Misc. 644, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 193

DecidedJune 21, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A. 919 (Cornicoff v. Hoffman) 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

Cornicoff v. Hoffman, 142 A. 919, 6 N.J. Misc. 644, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 193 (N.J. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

These two suits were tried together. They were brought to recover damages for personal injuries caused to the plaintiff Bertha Cornicoff while riding in the automobile of the defendant Saul Hoffman, on the 8th day of August, 1925, and incidental damages to her father, Max Cornicoff.

The trial resulted in a verdict of $25 against each defendant in favor of the father, Max Cornicoff, and a verdict of six cents in favor of the daughter, Bertha Cornicoff, against each defendant, as stated in the brief of the plaintiff, the verdict of the jury is not printed in the paper book. Eules to show cause were obtained by the plaintiff why a new trial should not be granted, alleging that the damages assessed by the jury were inadequate.

We think the rule in each case should be made absolute, and such is the order of the court.

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

Per Curiam.

These two suits were tried together. They were brought to recover damages for personal injuries caused to the plaintiff Bertha Cornicoff while riding in the automobile of the defendant Saul Hoffman, on the 8th day of August, 1925, and incidental damages to her father, Max Cornicoff.

The trial resulted in a verdict of $25 against each defendant in favor of the father, Max Cornicoff, and a verdict of six cents in favor of the daughter, Bertha Cornicoff, against each defendant, as stated in the brief of the plaintiff, the verdict of the jury is not printed in the paper book. Eules to show cause were obtained by the plaintiff why a new trial should not be granted, alleging that the damages assessed by the jury were inadequate.

We think the rule in each case should be made absolute, and such is the order of the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A. 919, 6 N.J. Misc. 644, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornicoff-v-hoffman-nj-1928.