Rosco v. Figaro

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Rosco v. Figaro

138 A. 923, 104 N.J.L. 184, 19 Gummere 184, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 324

DecidedOctober 17, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A. 923 (Rosco v. Figaro) 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

Rosco v. Figaro, 138 A. 923, 104 N.J.L. 184, 19 Gummere 184, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 324 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

This suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation for work and labor done in laying brick in the construction of a building which was being erected upon the property of the defendants in the city, of Garfield. His claim was that the work was done under a contract entered into between himself and the defendants; that he had completed that work, and that they .had refused to pay him the moneys due. The defendants answered, denying the truth of the matters set out in the complaint. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of his claim, and the defendants have appealed from the judgment entered upon that verdict.

*185 We find nothing of merit in any of the grounds for reversal which have been submitted to us, nor any matter in either of them which we deem worthy of specific discussion.

The judgment under review will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Yak Bus kirk, McGuEisnsroN, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, JJ. 14.

For reversal — Hone.

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

Pee Cueiam.

This suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation for work and labor done in laying brick in the construction of a building which was being erected upon the property of the defendants in the city, of Garfield. His claim was that the work was done under a contract entered into between himself and the defendants; that he had completed that work, and that they .had refused to pay him the moneys due. The defendants answered, denying the truth of the matters set out in the complaint. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of his claim, and the defendants have appealed from the judgment entered upon that verdict.

*185 We find nothing of merit in any of the grounds for reversal which have been submitted to us, nor any matter in either of them which we deem worthy of specific discussion.

The judgment under review will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Yak Bus kirk, McGuEisnsroN, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, JJ. 14.

For reversal — Hone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A. 923, 104 N.J.L. 184, 19 Gummere 184, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosco-v-figaro-nj-1927.