Mullen v. Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Mullen v. Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey

162 A. 424, 109 N.J.L. 414, 1932 N.J. LEXIS 381

DecidedOctober 17, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A. 424 (Mullen v. Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey) 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

Mullen v. Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey, 162 A. 424, 109 N.J.L. 414, 1932 N.J. LEXIS 381 (N.J. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court.

That opinion does not specifically discuss all the grounds of appeal, but we have examined them all and conclude that no harmful error is pointed out by any of them. It is doubtful whether the exceptions to the charge are adequate, but waiving this, we can find no injurious error. The phrase “into the roundhouse” in the part of the charge quoted' in the fourth ground of appeal, was of course inaccurate and without support in the evidence, but absolutely immaterial to the issue in the case, which it could not possibly have affected in any way.

For affirmance — Trenchard, Parker, Case, Donges, Brogan, Yan Buskirk, Kays, Dear, Wells, Keeney, JJ. 10.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court.

That opinion does not specifically discuss all the grounds of appeal, but we have examined them all and conclude that no harmful error is pointed out by any of them. It is doubtful whether the exceptions to the charge are adequate, but waiving this, we can find no injurious error. The phrase “into the roundhouse” in the part of the charge quoted' in the fourth ground of appeal, was of course inaccurate and without support in the evidence, but absolutely immaterial to the issue in the case, which it could not possibly have affected in any way.

For affirmance — Trenchard, Parker, Case, Donges, Brogan, Yan Buskirk, Kays, Dear, Wells, Keeney, JJ. 10.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A. 424, 109 N.J.L. 414, 1932 N.J. LEXIS 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullen-v-central-railroad-co-of-new-jersey-nj-1932.