McDermott v. De Meridor Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

McDermott v. De Meridor Co.

82 A. 900, 82 N.J.L. 530, 53 Vroom 530, 1912 N.J. LEXIS 250

DecidedMarch 4, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A. 900 (McDermott v. De Meridor 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.

Bluebook

McDermott v. De Meridor Co., 82 A. 900, 82 N.J.L. 530, 53 Vroom 530, 1912 N.J. LEXIS 250 (N.J. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree with the views expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Swavze in the Supreme Court upon the questions at issue in this case, other than the question of the measure of damages. Eespecting the latter question, we find it unnecessary to express an opinion, because an examination of the record in the trial court shows that the point was not properly raised there. The rule of damages contended for by plaintiff in error was suggested only as a ground for the direction of a verdict in its favor. But the rule, if well founded, would furnish no ground for such a direction.

The judgment under review should be affirmed.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchari), Bergen, Voorttees, Minturn, Bogert, VredenBURGH, CONGDON, JJ. 9.

For reversal—None.

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

Per Curiam.

We agree with the views expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Swavze in the Supreme Court upon the questions at issue in this case, other than the question of the measure of damages. Eespecting the latter question, we find it unnecessary to express an opinion, because an examination of the record in the trial court shows that the point was not properly raised there. The rule of damages contended for by plaintiff in error was suggested only as a ground for the direction of a verdict in its favor. But the rule, if well founded, would furnish no ground for such a direction.

The judgment under review should be affirmed.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchari), Bergen, Voorttees, Minturn, Bogert, VredenBURGH, CONGDON, JJ. 9.

For reversal—None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A. 900, 82 N.J.L. 530, 53 Vroom 530, 1912 N.J. LEXIS 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdermott-v-de-meridor-co-nj-1912.