Larken v. Lloyd

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Larken v. Lloyd

146 A. 924, 7 N.J. Misc. 494, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 260

DecidedMay 8, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 146 A. 924 (Larken v. Lloyd) 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

Larken v. Lloyd, 146 A. 924, 7 N.J. Misc. 494, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 260 (N.J. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Ctjexam.

This action was brought to recover compensation for personal injuries resulting in the death of plaintiff’s decedent. The injuries occurred to the decedent while he was riding a motorcycle driven by his son along Van Burén Place in the township of North Bergen. The defendant Edith Lloyd was the owner and the defendant Joseph C. Williams was the driver of the automobile which, in collision with the motorcycle, caused the injuries. Negligence of the defendants is alleged in the complaint.

The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $7,875. The defendants obtained a rule to show cause and, having filed seven reasons for the granting of a new trial, rely on four of them in their brief. We have considered the points thus argued and the evidence relating thereto but find no substantial reason for disturbing the verdict of the jury.

The rule to show cause is therefore discharged, with costs.

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

Pee Ctjexam.

This action was brought to recover compensation for personal injuries resulting in the death of plaintiff’s decedent. The injuries occurred to the decedent while he was riding a motorcycle driven by his son along Van Burén Place in the township of North Bergen. The defendant Edith Lloyd was the owner and the defendant Joseph C. Williams was the driver of the automobile which, in collision with the motorcycle, caused the injuries. Negligence of the defendants is alleged in the complaint.

The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $7,875. The defendants obtained a rule to show cause and, having filed seven reasons for the granting of a new trial, rely on four of them in their brief. We have considered the points thus argued and the evidence relating thereto but find no substantial reason for disturbing the verdict of the jury.

The rule to show cause is therefore discharged, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 A. 924, 7 N.J. Misc. 494, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larken-v-lloyd-nj-1929.