Kehoe v. Borough of Rutherford

70 A. 352, 76 N.J.L. 824, 1908 N.J. LEXIS 219
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Kehoe v. Borough of Rutherford. Read the opinion of the Court — 74 N.J.L. 659
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 28, 1908·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam:.

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

Kehoe v. Borough of Rutherford, 70 A. 352, 76 N.J.L. 824, 1908 N.J. LEXIS 219 (N.J. 1908).

70 A. 352 (Kehoe v. Borough of Rutherford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kehoe v. Borough of Rutherford
65 A. 1046 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1907)