Gerber v. Weinstein

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Gerber v. Weinstein

141 A. 3, 6 N.J. Misc. 284, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 336

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMarch 10, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 141 A. 3 (Gerber v. Weinstein) 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

Gerber v. Weinstein, 141 A. 3, 6 N.J. Misc. 284, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 336 (N.J. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover services rendered by an architect. The complaint consists of two counts, the first count demands $1,000. The second count demands $2,500. [285]*285The services rendered consist of the drawing, on the 18th of November, 1925, sketches for a four-story apartment house, to be located on the corner of Green and New streets in East Orange, New Jersey. The trial of the case resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, on the first count, for $1,085 and a non-suit of the plaintiff on the second count. The defendant appeals and files two grounds of appeal — first, error in denying a motion for a nonsuit. No so. Questions of fact were involved, which it was the province of the jury to settle. Second, error in denying the defendants’ motion for'the direction of a verdict — first, because, the contract is for the sale of goods and comes under the Sales act. No so, that statute has no application to the facts of the case. It was an agreement for work, services and materials furnished. Second, because there had been a novation of the agreement, which is the basis of the first count. No so, the facts proven do not show a novation under such cases as Cooke v. McAdoo, 85 N. J. L. 692.

The judgment of the Essex County Circuit Court is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover services rendered by an architect. The complaint consists of two counts, the first count demands $1,000. The second count demands $2,500. [285]*285The services rendered consist of the drawing, on the 18th of November, 1925, sketches for a four-story apartment house, to be located on the corner of Green and New streets in East Orange, New Jersey. The trial of the case resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, on the first count, for $1,085 and a non-suit of the plaintiff on the second count. The defendant appeals and files two grounds of appeal — first, error in denying a motion for a nonsuit. No so. Questions of fact were involved, which it was the province of the jury to settle. Second, error in denying the defendants’ motion for'the direction of a verdict — first, because, the contract is for the sale of goods and comes under the Sales act. No so, that statute has no application to the facts of the case. It was an agreement for work, services and materials furnished. Second, because there had been a novation of the agreement, which is the basis of the first count. No so, the facts proven do not show a novation under such cases as Cooke v. McAdoo, 85 N. J. L. 692.

The judgment of the Essex County Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A. 3, 6 N.J. Misc. 284, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerber-v-weinstein-nj-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack