Moncher v. Fuches

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Moncher v. Fuches

149 A. 356, 8 N.J. Misc. 172, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 288

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided March 6, 1930·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff brought suit in the Eirst District Court of Essex county for personal injuries. Judgment was given for $175. The appeal is on the ground that the undisputed testimony shows damages in excess thereof. The evidence was to the effect that the plaintiff was a plasterer by trade and had lost [173] more than $400 in wages and had expended for medicine and doctor’s care about $44.

The problem for the District Court was one of fact, and from that finding there is no appeal. “Only the determination or direction of the District Court in point of law or upon the admission or rejection of evidence is open in the Supreme Court.” Oppicci v. Erie, 93 N. J. L. 394.

The judgment below is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff brought suit in the Eirst District Court of Essex county for personal injuries. Judgment was given for $175. The appeal is on the ground that the undisputed testimony shows damages in excess thereof. The evidence was to the effect that the plaintiff was a plasterer by trade and had lost [173] more than $400 in wages and had expended for medicine and doctor’s care about $44.

The problem for the District Court was one of fact, and from that finding there is no appeal. “Only the determination or direction of the District Court in point of law or upon the admission or rejection of evidence is open in the Supreme Court.” Oppicci v. Erie, 93 N. J. L. 394.

The judgment below is affirmed.

Moncher v. Fuches, 149 A. 356, 8 N.J. Misc. 172, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 288 (N.J. 1930).

Pincite

149 A. 356 (Moncher v. Fuches) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related