Reed v. Williams

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Reed v. Williams

148 A. 924, 8 N.J. Misc. 68, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 319

DecidedJanuary 14, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 148 A. 924 (Reed v. Williams) 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

Reed v. Williams, 148 A. 924, 8 N.J. Misc. 68, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 319 (N.J. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation for personal injuries received by himself, and for the practical destruction of his horse, resulting from being run down by an automobile of the defendant, which the latter was driving. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the jury awarding him $5,000, and we are now asked to set the verdict aside first because the proofs did not justify a finding that the accident was the result of carelessness on the part of the defendant, and second, because the verdict is excessive.

Our examination of the proofs satisfies us that neither of these contentions have substantial merit.

■ We conclude, therefore, that the rule to show cause should be discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation for personal injuries received by himself, and for the practical destruction of his horse, resulting from being run down by an automobile of the defendant, which the latter was driving. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the jury awarding him $5,000, and we are now asked to set the verdict aside first because the proofs did not justify a finding that the accident was the result of carelessness on the part of the defendant, and second, because the verdict is excessive.

Our examination of the proofs satisfies us that neither of these contentions have substantial merit.

■ We conclude, therefore, that the rule to show cause should be discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A. 924, 8 N.J. Misc. 68, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-williams-nj-1930.