Szalkowski v. C. S. Osborne & Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Szalkowski v. C. S. Osborne & Co.

182 A. 632, 116 N.J.L. 93, 1936 N.J. LEXIS 189

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided January 31, 1936·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This was an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from the suffering of plaintiff below from silicosis and tuberculosis, said to have been caused by the inhaling of dust in a tool-making factory of the appellant.

The plaintiff below had a verdict and from the judgment thereon the defendant below appeals and urges two grounds for reversal; error in refusing to nonsuit and error in refusing to direct a verdict in its favor.

We find no error under either of these grounds.

The judgment under review is affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Lloyd, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells. WolfsKeil, Rafferty, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

This was an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from the suffering of plaintiff below from silicosis and tuberculosis, said to have been caused by the inhaling of dust in a tool-making factory of the appellant.

The plaintiff below had a verdict and from the judgment thereon the defendant below appeals and urges two grounds for reversal; error in refusing to nonsuit and error in refusing to direct a verdict in its favor.

We find no error under either of these grounds.

The judgment under review is affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Lloyd, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells. WolfsKeil, Rafferty, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.

Szalkowski v. C. S. Osborne & Co., 182 A. 632, 116 N.J.L. 93, 1936 N.J. LEXIS 189 (N.J. 1936).

Pincite

182 A. 632 (Szalkowski v. C. S. Osborne & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.