Voltzow ex rel. Voltzow v. Cofrancesco

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Voltzow ex rel. Voltzow v. Cofrancesco

1 N.J. Misc. 13, 1923 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 226

DecidedFebruary 20, 1923

StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.J. Misc. 13 (Voltzow ex rel. Voltzow v. Cofrancesco) 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

Voltzow ex rel. Voltzow v. Cofrancesco, 1 N.J. Misc. 13, 1923 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 226 (N.J. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a second rule to show cause. On the previous rule the verdict was set aside. If this present verdict is a concurring one we are required to dismiss the rule, following Brown v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 69 N. J. L. 474. It is clearly concurring on the question of liability. It is equally clear that it is not concurring on the question of the amount of that liability; the jury- in the later trial awarded much higher damages than in the former.

[14]*14We think, however, that under -the circumstances, two juries having found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for large amounts, we ought not to interfere since the amount of the damages is properly a jury question.

Let -the rule be discharged, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a second rule to show cause. On the previous rule the verdict was set aside. If this present verdict is a concurring one we are required to dismiss the rule, following Brown v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 69 N. J. L. 474. It is clearly concurring on the question of liability. It is equally clear that it is not concurring on the question of the amount of that liability; the jury- in the later trial awarded much higher damages than in the former.

[14]*14We think, however, that under -the circumstances, two juries having found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for large amounts, we ought not to interfere since the amount of the damages is properly a jury question.

Let -the rule be discharged, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.J. Misc. 13, 1923 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/voltzow-ex-rel-voltzow-v-cofrancesco-nj-1923.