Patton v. Hughes

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Patton v. Hughes

86 A. 1103, 84 N.J.L. 414, 55 Vroom 414, 1913 N.J. LEXIS 197

DecidedMarch 3, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A. 1103 (Patton v. Hughes) 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

Patton v. Hughes, 86 A. 1103, 84 N.J.L. 414, 55 Vroom 414, 1913 N.J. LEXIS 197 (N.J. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The sole proposition urged on this writ of error is that the trial court should, on the evidence, have withdrawn from the consideration of the jury the question of defendant’s negligence and whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, by entering a nonsuit or directing a verdict for defendant. Our examination of the testimony leads us to the conclusion that a jury question was presented in both aspects, and, consequently, that the refusal of the court to nonsuit [415]*415as to the plaintiff in error or direct a verdict in his favor was entirely proper.

No useful purpose would be subserved by a discussion of the evidence. The judgment brought up for review will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Garrison, Svvayze, Tee nctiaed, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisoii, Bogert, Vredenbuegh, Oongdon, Treacy, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

The sole proposition urged on this writ of error is that the trial court should, on the evidence, have withdrawn from the consideration of the jury the question of defendant’s negligence and whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, by entering a nonsuit or directing a verdict for defendant. Our examination of the testimony leads us to the conclusion that a jury question was presented in both aspects, and, consequently, that the refusal of the court to nonsuit [415]*415as to the plaintiff in error or direct a verdict in his favor was entirely proper.

No useful purpose would be subserved by a discussion of the evidence. The judgment brought up for review will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Garrison, Svvayze, Tee nctiaed, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisoii, Bogert, Vredenbuegh, Oongdon, Treacy, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A. 1103, 84 N.J.L. 414, 55 Vroom 414, 1913 N.J. LEXIS 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patton-v-hughes-nj-1913.