Hegman v. Jersey City, Hoboken & Paterson Street Railway Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Hegman v. Jersey City, Hoboken & Paterson Street Railway Co.

75 A. 1101, 78 N.J.L. 739, 1910 N.J. LEXIS 169

DecidedFebruary 28, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 75 A. 1101 (Hegman v. Jersey City, Hoboken & Paterson Street Railway Co.) 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

Hegman v. Jersey City, Hoboken & Paterson Street Railway Co., 75 A. 1101, 78 N.J.L. 739, 1910 N.J. LEXIS 169 (N.J. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Beed in the Supreme Court. We observe a slight inaccuracy in the opinion, where, after reciting the evidence of the collision and the fatal injuries to the plaintiff’s intestate, the opinion goes on to say: “It follows that the collision was either a pure accident, without the fault of anyone, or that it resulted from the fault of the defendant in maintaining a defective front platform upon the rear car.” The defective front platform had to do, not with producing the collision, but only with the fatal result to the plaintiff’s intestate. The reasoning of the opinion is not affected by this inaccuracy.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Dill, Congdon, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Beed in the Supreme Court. We observe a slight inaccuracy in the opinion, where, after reciting the evidence of the collision and the fatal injuries to the plaintiff’s intestate, the opinion goes on to say: “It follows that the collision was either a pure accident, without the fault of anyone, or that it resulted from the fault of the defendant in maintaining a defective front platform upon the rear car.” The defective front platform had to do, not with producing the collision, but only with the fatal result to the plaintiff’s intestate. The reasoning of the opinion is not affected by this inaccuracy.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Dill, Congdon, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A. 1101, 78 N.J.L. 739, 1910 N.J. LEXIS 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hegman-v-jersey-city-hoboken-paterson-street-railway-co-nj-1910.