Miller v. Balfour

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Miller v. Balfour

49 A.2d 303, 134 N.J.L. 546, 1946 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 74

DecidedOctober 28, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.2d 303 (Miller v. Balfour) 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

Miller v. Balfour, 49 A.2d 303, 134 N.J.L. 546, 1946 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 74 (N.J. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Parker, J.

The ease arose out of an alleged collision between two automobiles resulting in damage to a State Highway sign. The Commissioner brought suit, joining both drivers and the respective owners. Nonsuits were denied. Both defendants then rested without adducing any evidence, and moved for “directed verdicts” on the same grounds as those urged on motion to nonsuit. The court then said: “I feel that under the presumptions allowed under the law I am in a different position now than I was at the resting of the state’s case and I will grant the motions of the defendants for the direction of verdicts of no cause of action in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff, the State of New Jersey.” Plaintiff’s counsel then took an exception.

We conclude that there was legal error in that ruling. It is true, of course, that there was no jury, and that the judge was therefore a trier of the facts. If, as such trier, he had found for the defendant, on the evidence before him, that probably would have ended the matter: but the “direction of a verdict” even though there was no jury, amounted to an adjudication that there was no evidence in the case to inculpate the operator of either automobile. There was such evidence, however; and consequently the plaintiff was entitled to have it considered. Higgins v. Goerke Kirch Co., 92 N. J. L. 424, citing Weston v. Benecke, 82 Id. 445.

Those considerations lead to a reversal and trial de novo.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Parker, J.

The ease arose out of an alleged collision between two automobiles resulting in damage to a State Highway sign. The Commissioner brought suit, joining both drivers and the respective owners. Nonsuits were denied. Both defendants then rested without adducing any evidence, and moved for “directed verdicts” on the same grounds as those urged on motion to nonsuit. The court then said: “I feel that under the presumptions allowed under the law I am in a different position now than I was at the resting of the state’s case and I will grant the motions of the defendants for the direction of verdicts of no cause of action in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff, the State of New Jersey.” Plaintiff’s counsel then took an exception.

We conclude that there was legal error in that ruling. It is true, of course, that there was no jury, and that the judge was therefore a trier of the facts. If, as such trier, he had found for the defendant, on the evidence before him, that probably would have ended the matter: but the “direction of a verdict” even though there was no jury, amounted to an adjudication that there was no evidence in the case to inculpate the operator of either automobile. There was such evidence, however; and consequently the plaintiff was entitled to have it considered. Higgins v. Goerke Kirch Co., 92 N. J. L. 424, citing Weston v. Benecke, 82 Id. 445.

Those considerations lead to a reversal and trial de novo.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.2d 303, 134 N.J.L. 546, 1946 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-balfour-nj-1946.