Petito v. Pirrie

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Petito v. Pirrie

143 A. 617, 105 N.J.L. 8, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 457

DecidedNovember 17, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 143 A. 617 (Petito v. Pirrie) 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

Petito v. Pirrie, 143 A. 617, 105 N.J.L. 8, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 457 (N.J. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

TeEjVCIiard, J.

This is the defendant’s appeal from a judgment of the District Court entered upon the verdict of a jury in favor of the infant plaintiff for $300 for personal injuries sustained by him in an automobile collision, and iñ favor of the parent of such infant for $100 for expenses, &c.

The defendant’s only objection is that both findings as to damages are excessive in view of the evidence.

But only “the determination or direction of such District Court in point of law or upon the admission or rejection of evidence” is open to review on appeal to the Supreme Court. Comp. Stat., p. 2016, § 213A. Hence, it is not open to the Supreme Court on appeal to reverse a judgment of the District Court upon the theory that the damages awarded by the jury were excessive, unless there was legal error as to the rule of damages. Delaney v. Erie Railroad Co., 97 N. J. L. 434; Oppicci v. Erie Railroad Co., 93 Id. 394. Here there was no such error. Moreover, there was evidence relative to the amount of damage resulting to both plaintiffs. The argument of the defendant mistakenly treats the case as if it were before this court on a rule to show cause instead of a statutory appeal..

The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

TeEjVCIiard, J.

This is the defendant’s appeal from a judgment of the District Court entered upon the verdict of a jury in favor of the infant plaintiff for $300 for personal injuries sustained by him in an automobile collision, and iñ favor of the parent of such infant for $100 for expenses, &c.

The defendant’s only objection is that both findings as to damages are excessive in view of the evidence.

But only “the determination or direction of such District Court in point of law or upon the admission or rejection of evidence” is open to review on appeal to the Supreme Court. Comp. Stat., p. 2016, § 213A. Hence, it is not open to the Supreme Court on appeal to reverse a judgment of the District Court upon the theory that the damages awarded by the jury were excessive, unless there was legal error as to the rule of damages. Delaney v. Erie Railroad Co., 97 N. J. L. 434; Oppicci v. Erie Railroad Co., 93 Id. 394. Here there was no such error. Moreover, there was evidence relative to the amount of damage resulting to both plaintiffs. The argument of the defendant mistakenly treats the case as if it were before this court on a rule to show cause instead of a statutory appeal..

The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A. 617, 105 N.J.L. 8, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petito-v-pirrie-nj-1928.