Kehoe v. Borough of Rutherford
This text of 70 A. 352 (Kehoe v. Borough of Rutherford) 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.
Opinion
The only assignment of error' challenges the propriety of the action of the trial court in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant at its request. Such a direction would have been, in the face of our opinion, rendered in an earlier stage of this litigation, and reported in 45 Vroom 659. There was no error in its refusal.
The judgment under review will be affirmed.
For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Eeed, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Yoorhees, Minturn, Bogert, Yredenburgh, Yroom, Green, Gray, Dill, J.J. 16.
For reversal—None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
70 A. 352, 76 N.J.L. 824, 1908 N.J. LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kehoe-v-borough-of-rutherford-nj-1908.