Debourbon v. Costanzo

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Debourbon v. Costanzo

19 A.2d 824, 126 N.J.L. 425, 1941 N.J. LEXIS 331

DecidedMay 1, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.2d 824 (Debourbon v. Costanzo) 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

Debourbon v. Costanzo, 19 A.2d 824, 126 N.J.L. 425, 1941 N.J. LEXIS 331 (N.J. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court affirming a judgment of the Pirst District Court of the City of Newark. The suit was for unpaid salary alleged to be due plaintiff under an oral contract of employment. Defendant denied the employment and counter-claimed for moneys alleged to have been advanced to plaintiff in connection with the operation of a beauty parlor out of which the controversy grew. The testimony clearly presented a question of fact and in this situation the denial of the motion for nonsuit was proper. On appeal from the District Court neither the Supreme Court nor this court will weigh the evidence.- If there is legal evidence to support the judgment, it will stand. R. S. 2:32-202. Bowen v. Godfrey, 9 N. J. Mis. R. 410; affirmed, 109 N. J. L. 261. The record discloses such evidence in this case.

The judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Parker, Case, Donges, IIeher, Perskib, Colie, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Eaeeerty, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 14.

For reversals — None.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court affirming a judgment of the Pirst District Court of the City of Newark. The suit was for unpaid salary alleged to be due plaintiff under an oral contract of employment. Defendant denied the employment and counter-claimed for moneys alleged to have been advanced to plaintiff in connection with the operation of a beauty parlor out of which the controversy grew. The testimony clearly presented a question of fact and in this situation the denial of the motion for nonsuit was proper. On appeal from the District Court neither the Supreme Court nor this court will weigh the evidence.- If there is legal evidence to support the judgment, it will stand. R. S. 2:32-202. Bowen v. Godfrey, 9 N. J. Mis. R. 410; affirmed, 109 N. J. L. 261. The record discloses such evidence in this case.

The judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Parker, Case, Donges, IIeher, Perskib, Colie, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Eaeeerty, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 14.

For reversals — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.2d 824, 126 N.J.L. 425, 1941 N.J. LEXIS 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/debourbon-v-costanzo-nj-1941.