Edison Fixture Co. v. Martone

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Edison Fixture Co. v. Martone

130 A. 456, 3 N.J. Misc. 967, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 85

DecidedOctober 6, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 130 A. 456 (Edison Fixture Co. v. Martone) 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

Edison Fixture Co. v. Martone, 130 A. 456, 3 N.J. Misc. 967, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 85 (N.J. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover the balance due for two electric lamps furnished the defendant by the plaintiff of $25.40. The trial resulted in a nonsuit of the plaintiff, and this is the error complained of. The testimony shows that the lampe were furnished under a writen contract dated April 23d, 1923, at the bottom of which was written "salesman D. Dobrin.” The plaintiff proved that Mr. Dobrin was in Los Angeles, California, by a witness Max Forman. The defendant was then called. "Q. Did you sign this paper? A. Yes. sir. Mr. Grecnbaum, I offer it in evidence. Mr. Kennedy — I object to that. The court’s objection sustained.” This was reversible error. If D. Dobrin was a subscribing witness, which we do not think he was, it was shown he was out of the state, then other proof of the paper’s execution is competent. New Jersey Zinc, &c., Co. v. Lehigh Zinc, &c., Co., 59 N. J. L. 189: Worman v. Seyberl, 78 id. 176. Then a nonsuit was entered. As stated, this was reversible error.

The judgment of the District Court is reversed and a venire de novo awarded.

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

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover the balance due for two electric lamps furnished the defendant by the plaintiff of $25.40. The trial resulted in a nonsuit of the plaintiff, and this is the error complained of. The testimony shows that the lampe were furnished under a writen contract dated April 23d, 1923, at the bottom of which was written "salesman D. Dobrin.” The plaintiff proved that Mr. Dobrin was in Los Angeles, California, by a witness Max Forman. The defendant was then called. "Q. Did you sign this paper? A. Yes. sir. Mr. Grecnbaum, I offer it in evidence. Mr. Kennedy — I object to that. The court’s objection sustained.” This was reversible error. If D. Dobrin was a subscribing witness, which we do not think he was, it was shown he was out of the state, then other proof of the paper’s execution is competent. New Jersey Zinc, &c., Co. v. Lehigh Zinc, &c., Co., 59 N. J. L. 189: Worman v. Seyberl, 78 id. 176. Then a nonsuit was entered. As stated, this was reversible error.

The judgment of the District Court is reversed and a venire de novo awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A. 456, 3 N.J. Misc. 967, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edison-fixture-co-v-martone-nj-1925.