Elliott v. Philadelphia & Camden Ferry Co.

83 A. 899, 83 N.J.L. 625, 54 Vroom 625, 1912 N.J. LEXIS 192

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defence claims exemption from liability because the arrest for which plaintiff sues was the act of the employe when engaged in a mailer of his own and not in the course of his duty as servant of the defendant. It appears that the plaintiff was on the ferryboat as a passenger and had paid his fare. The case is therefore governed by Haver v. Central Railroad, 33 Vroom 282, and it was proper to refuse to nonsuit and to direct a verdict for defendant.

We think the trial judge was right also in excluding evidence that the plaintiff had made a good many claims and brought other suits against corporations before the present one.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — Tub Chibe Justice, Garrison,’ Swayzb, Trencharo, Parker, Bergen, Yooriibes, Mtnturn, Kauisoh, Bogbrt, Vrbdbnrurgh, Vroom, Cokguon, White, Treacy, JJ. 15.

For reversal — "None.