Monteleone v. Roof

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Monteleone v. Roof

67 A.2d 897, 4 N.J. Super. 466, 1949 N.J. Super. LEXIS 831

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedJuly 20, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.2d 897 (Monteleone v. Roof) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Monteleone v. Roof, 67 A.2d 897, 4 N.J. Super. 466, 1949 N.J. Super. LEXIS 831 (N.J. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff sued for money due on a contract whereby defendant was to furnish the materials to build defendant's house, the plaintiff to supply the labor. The jury found for the plaintiff. On this appeal, the defendant admits that "The dispute concerned how many hours were actually worked and whether the plaintiff had any right to pay a co-workman $1 an hour, add 25c for overhead, and then another contractor's percentage variously stated as `about 15 or 20%' * * *." There is evidence in the record by the plaintiff of the hours worked and of an agreement as to overhead and contractor's percentage, although contradicted by the defendant. The court properly left the question of fact to the jury and since there is evidence to support its verdict, we will not set the verdict aside as against the weight of the evidence. We have examined the other alleged errors and find them without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Plaintiff sued for money due on a contract whereby defendant was to furnish the materials to build defendant's house, the plaintiff to supply the labor. The jury found for the plaintiff. On this appeal, the defendant admits that "The dispute concerned how many hours were actually worked and whether the plaintiff had any right to pay a co-workman $1 an hour, add 25c for overhead, and then another contractor's percentage variously stated as `about 15 or 20%' * * *." There is evidence in the record by the plaintiff of the hours worked and of an agreement as to overhead and contractor's percentage, although contradicted by the defendant. The court properly left the question of fact to the jury and since there is evidence to support its verdict, we will not set the verdict aside as against the weight of the evidence. We have examined the other alleged errors and find them without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.2d 897, 4 N.J. Super. 466, 1949 N.J. Super. LEXIS 831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monteleone-v-roof-njsuperctappdiv-1949.