Peterson v. Crossley

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Peterson v. Crossley

189 A. 624, 117 N.J.L. 525, 1937 N.J. LEXIS 215

DecidedJanuary 22, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 189 A. 624 (Peterson v. Crossley) 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

Peterson v. Crossley, 189 A. 624, 117 N.J.L. 525, 1937 N.J. LEXIS 215 (N.J. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the per curiam opinion filed in the Supreme Court; with this further observation: The defendant’s employe, against whom the slander and false arrest are alleged, was not provoked thereunto by any suggestion of a contemporaneous theft. All that appears upon the record as a reason which impelled the employe to utter the offensive words and to cause the detention was that he observed within the plaintiff’s vehicle a bottle of oil of a brand carried in stock by the defendant as well as by the defendant’s competitors. The employe, having so observed, concluded that the article had, at some time, been stolen from the defendant; and thereupon he entered upon a course of conduct which, under the circumstances, was quite outside the scope of his authority.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Case, Perskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Cole, JJ. 12.

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 should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the per curiam opinion filed in the Supreme Court; with this further observation: The defendant’s employe, against whom the slander and false arrest are alleged, was not provoked thereunto by any suggestion of a contemporaneous theft. All that appears upon the record as a reason which impelled the employe to utter the offensive words and to cause the detention was that he observed within the plaintiff’s vehicle a bottle of oil of a brand carried in stock by the defendant as well as by the defendant’s competitors. The employe, having so observed, concluded that the article had, at some time, been stolen from the defendant; and thereupon he entered upon a course of conduct which, under the circumstances, was quite outside the scope of his authority.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Case, Perskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Cole, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A. 624, 117 N.J.L. 525, 1937 N.J. LEXIS 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-crossley-nj-1937.