Downs v. Winslow

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Downs v. Winslow

251 A.2d 137, 105 N.J. Super. 54, 1969 N.J. Super. LEXIS 495

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedMarch 12, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.2d 137 (Downs v. Winslow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Downs v. Winslow, 251 A.2d 137, 105 N.J. Super. 54, 1969 N.J. Super. LEXIS 495 (N.J. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

In view of what happened in the trial of

the consolidated cases, we question the trial court’s holding (Downs v. Winslow, 97 N. J. Super. 238, 244) (Law Div. 1968) that there was an adjudication that Joy Downs could not have recovered in an action against Rosemary Di Ionno. However, we find it unnecessary to express any opinion on this question because it is immaterial whether or not there could have been such a recovery. The fact of the matter is that Di lonno’s carrier did settle Downs’ claim aganist Di Ionno for $1,400. The Eund was entitled to the benefit of that settlement even if it be a fact that Downs could not have prevailed in an action against Di Ionno. Cf. Shebell v. Strelecki, 104 N. J. Super. 139 (App. Div. 1969). Since the Downs judgment against Winslow was less than the $1,400 paid to Downs by Di lonno’s carrier, the Eund owes Downs nothing.

Reversed. No costs.

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

Pee Curiam.

In view of what happened in the trial of

the consolidated cases, we question the trial court’s holding (Downs v. Winslow, 97 N. J. Super. 238, 244) (Law Div. 1968) that there was an adjudication that Joy Downs could not have recovered in an action against Rosemary Di Ionno. However, we find it unnecessary to express any opinion on this question because it is immaterial whether or not there could have been such a recovery. The fact of the matter is that Di lonno’s carrier did settle Downs’ claim aganist Di Ionno for $1,400. The Eund was entitled to the benefit of that settlement even if it be a fact that Downs could not have prevailed in an action against Di Ionno. Cf. Shebell v. Strelecki, 104 N. J. Super. 139 (App. Div. 1969). Since the Downs judgment against Winslow was less than the $1,400 paid to Downs by Di lonno’s carrier, the Eund owes Downs nothing.

Reversed. No costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.2d 137, 105 N.J. Super. 54, 1969 N.J. Super. LEXIS 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/downs-v-winslow-njsuperctappdiv-1969.