Lewis v. M. & v. Motor Co.
This text of 150 A. 919 (Lewis v. M. & v. Motor 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.
Opinion
There is a mistake of fact in the per curiam of the Supreme-Court, which states that verdicts were awarded to the plaintiff Esther Lewis for personal injuries, and to her husband, Franklin Lewis, for loss of services and expense of curing his. wife. On the contrary the suits were for loss of the car and other personal property.
With the exception just mentioned the judgments under-review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Black, Campbell, Case, Bodine, Van Buskirk, Mc-Glennon, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
150 A. 919, 106 N.J.L. 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-m-v-motor-co-nj-1930.