Pabst v. Schwartzstein

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Pabst v. Schwartzstein

132 A. 92, 4 N.J. Misc. 119, 1926 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 331

DecidedFebruary 4, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A. 92 (Pabst v. Schwartzstein) 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

Pabst v. Schwartzstein, 132 A. 92, 4 N.J. Misc. 119, 1926 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 331 (N.J. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff asks for costs of his rule to show cause after succeeding thereon, going to second trial, and receiving an adverse verdict thereon.

The complaint was in two counts. At the first trial, on one count plaintiff had a verdict which he claimed was inadequate ; on the other count he was nonsuited. We discharged the rule as to the alleged inadequacy, but considered the non-suit erroneous, and directed a new trial as to the count on [120]*120which nonsuit was directed. At the second trial plaintiff went to the jury, who found for defendant.

We see no reason for departing from the rule laid down in a similar ease entitled “Anonymous ,” in 16 N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 496. This court said: “The rule as to costs in such cases, and in all others in which a new trial is granted, in consequence of an error or mistake of the judge at the. Circuit, is that the costs of the former trial, as well as the costs of the proceedings here on the motion for a new trial, shall abide the event of the suit.”

It follows that award of costs should be denied.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff asks for costs of his rule to show cause after succeeding thereon, going to second trial, and receiving an adverse verdict thereon.

The complaint was in two counts. At the first trial, on one count plaintiff had a verdict which he claimed was inadequate ; on the other count he was nonsuited. We discharged the rule as to the alleged inadequacy, but considered the non-suit erroneous, and directed a new trial as to the count on [120]*120which nonsuit was directed. At the second trial plaintiff went to the jury, who found for defendant.

We see no reason for departing from the rule laid down in a similar ease entitled “Anonymous ,” in 16 N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 496. This court said: “The rule as to costs in such cases, and in all others in which a new trial is granted, in consequence of an error or mistake of the judge at the. Circuit, is that the costs of the former trial, as well as the costs of the proceedings here on the motion for a new trial, shall abide the event of the suit.”

It follows that award of costs should be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A. 92, 4 N.J. Misc. 119, 1926 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pabst-v-schwartzstein-nj-1926.