Sodowich v. Heimert

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Sodowich v. Heimert

154 A. 609, 108 N.J.L. 59, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 533

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMay 5, 1931

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 154 A. 609 (Sodowich v. Heimert) 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

Sodowich v. Heimert, 154 A. 609, 108 N.J.L. 59, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 533 (N.J. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Parker, J.

The writ brings up the record of a damage suit growing out of the fact the respondent, plaintiff below, was struck by prosecutor’s automobile while crossing a street. There was a judgment for plaintiff based on injuries to property including damage to clothing, medical expenses and loss of wages. The state of demand contained a claim for personal injury and pain and suffering, but this was not considered in the present suit and was passed upon in another suit between the same parties, in the same court, tried at the same time, on the same evidence, and resulting in a judgment for $500. In that suit there was no award for property damage.

The first point now made is that the other suit was res judicata and that the court was thus without jurisdiction to-determine this action. But the case of Ochs v. Public Service Railway Co., 81 N. J. L. 661, is to the contrary, and holds that separate actions may be maintained.

The next point is that the present judgment of $220 was not warranted by the proofs. These, however, are not laid before us, and so there is no basis for a determination of this point.

The third point is identical in substance with the first.

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

Parker, J.

The writ brings up the record of a damage suit growing out of the fact the respondent, plaintiff below, was struck by prosecutor’s automobile while crossing a street. There was a judgment for plaintiff based on injuries to property including damage to clothing, medical expenses and loss of wages. The state of demand contained a claim for personal injury and pain and suffering, but this was not considered in the present suit and was passed upon in another suit between the same parties, in the same court, tried at the same time, on the same evidence, and resulting in a judgment for $500. In that suit there was no award for property damage.

The first point now made is that the other suit was res judicata and that the court was thus without jurisdiction to-determine this action. But the case of Ochs v. Public Service Railway Co., 81 N. J. L. 661, is to the contrary, and holds that separate actions may be maintained.

The next point is that the present judgment of $220 was not warranted by the proofs. These, however, are not laid before us, and so there is no basis for a determination of this point.

The third point is identical in substance with the first.

The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A. 609, 108 N.J.L. 59, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sodowich-v-heimert-nj-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack