Hoff v. White

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Hoff v. White

135 A. 879, 5 N.J. Misc. 194, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 329

DecidedJanuary 28, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A. 879 (Hoff v. White) 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

Hoff v. White, 135 A. 879, 5 N.J. Misc. 194, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 329 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action was brought to recover on account of injuries alleged to have resulted from a fall due to the condition of the sidewalk in front of defendant’s premises made so by the act of the defendant in piling and artificially accumulating loose snow over a layer of ice. The defense was that plaintiff did not fall in front of defendant’s premises, but in front of a neighboring property. The jury found in favor of the defendant on January 21st, 1926. This rule to show cause why a new trial should not he granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, was not applied for until six months later.

Our examination of the proofs result in the conclusion that the newly-discovered evidence is merely cumulative and corroborative of evidence heard at the trial, and, hence, more especially in view of the long delay, will not justify a new trial.

The rule will be discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

This action was brought to recover on account of injuries alleged to have resulted from a fall due to the condition of the sidewalk in front of defendant’s premises made so by the act of the defendant in piling and artificially accumulating loose snow over a layer of ice. The defense was that plaintiff did not fall in front of defendant’s premises, but in front of a neighboring property. The jury found in favor of the defendant on January 21st, 1926. This rule to show cause why a new trial should not he granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, was not applied for until six months later.

Our examination of the proofs result in the conclusion that the newly-discovered evidence is merely cumulative and corroborative of evidence heard at the trial, and, hence, more especially in view of the long delay, will not justify a new trial.

The rule will be discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A. 879, 5 N.J. Misc. 194, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoff-v-white-nj-1927.