Gorson v. Atlantic City R. R. Co.

78 N. J. L.

For affirmance-THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, GARRISON, SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, VOORHEES, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, GRAY, DILL, CONGDON, JJ. 13.

For reversal-None.

WILLIAM A. GORSON, DEFENDANT IN ERROR. v. ATLANTIC CITY RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

Argued November 24, 1909-Decided February 28, 1910.

On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 48 Vroom 264.

For the plaintiff in error, Thompson & Cole.

For the defendant in error, Eli H. Chandler.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Garrison in the Supreme Court.

For affirmance-THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, REED, TRENCHARD, BERGEN, VOORHEES, MINTURN, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, GRAY, DILL. CONGDON, JJ. 13.

For reversal-None.

49 Vroom.

Hegman v. Jersey City, &c., Ry. Co.

ELIZABETH HEGMAN, ADMINISTRATRIX, &c., DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. JERSEY CITY, HOBOKEN AND PATERSON STREET RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

Argued November 26, 1909-Decided February 28, 1910.

On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 48 Vroom 310.

For the plaintiff in error, William D. Edwards and Edwin F. Smith.

For the defendant in error, Alexander Simpson.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court. We observe a slight inaccuracy in the opinion, where, after reciting the evidence of the collision and the fatal injuries to the plaintiff's intestate, the opinion goes on to say: "It follows that the collision was either a pure accident, without the fault of anyone, or that it resulted from the fault of the defendant in maintaining a defective front platform upon the rear car." The defective front platform had to do, not with producing the collision, but only with the fatal result to the plaintiff's intestate. The reasoning of the opinion is not affected by this inaccuracy.

For affirmance-THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, GARRISON, SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, MINTURN, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, DILL, CONGDON, JJ. 12.

For reversal-None.

HUGH H. MARA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. MAYOR AND

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYONNE ET AL., PLAINT-
IFFS IN ERROR.

Submitted December 6, 1909-Decided February 28, 1910.

On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 48 Vroom 288.

For the plaintiffs in error, Elmer W. Demarest.

For the defendant in error, Daniel J. Murray and Thomas F. Noonan.

PER CURIAM.

Without finding it necessary to adopt in its entirety the reasoning of the court below upon the constitutional questions raised in this case, we have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the act of the legislature under consideration (Pamph L. 1908, p. 266) is not unconstitutional upon any of the grounds upon which its validity is attached.

The judgment under review should be affirmed.

GARRISON, J. (concurring). In voting to affirm this judgment of the Supreme Court directing the plaintiffs in error to order special elections to be held to determine upon the retention or rejection of voting machines under the supplemental act of April 10th, 1908 (Pamph. L., p. 266), I wish to draw attention to the fact that the plaintiffs in error do not make the point that such supplemental act is unconstitutional as a delegation of the law-making power directly to the electors at the polls; hence the question whether such supplemental act is in contravention of the constitution in the respect pointed out in Paterson v. Society, 4 Zab. 385, and in the recent case of Attorney-General . McGuinness in this

49 Vroom.

Prospect Boiler Co. v. Bloomfield Clay Co.

court, is not passed upon or considered in affirming the present judgment upon the errors assigned.

For affirmance-THE CHANCELLOR, GARRISON, REED, PARKER, BERGEN, VOORHEES, MINTURN, BOGERT, VREDENBURGII, VROOM, GRAY, DILL, CONGDON, JJ. 13.

For reversal-None.

PROSPECT BOILER COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. BLOOMFIELD CLAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

Submitted December 6 1909-Decided February 28, 1910.

On error to the Supreme Court.

For the plaintiff in error, George S. Silzer.

For the defendant in error, John H. Backes.

PER CURIAM.

The questions raised in this case are not sufficiently novel or doubtful to require particular discussion at our hands. We find no error in the record.

The judgment under review should be affirmed.

For affirmance-THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, GARRISON, SWAYZE, REED, TRENCHARD, PARKER, BERGEN, MINTURN, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, GRAY, DILL, CONGDON, JJ. 15.

For reversal--None.

THOMAS A. RYER, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM MINNINGHAM, ADMINISTRATOR, &c., PLAINTIFF IN

ERROR.

Submitted December 6, 1909-Decided February 28, 1910.

On error to the Hudson Circuit Court.

For the plaintiff in error, George E. Cutley.

For the defendant in error, L. Edward Herrmann and Andrew J. Steelman, Jr.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for commissions upon the sale of a property that was owned by Mrs. Minningham (now deceased) and which she in writing authorized the plaintiff to sell at a price stated and for a specified commission. Plaintiff succeeded in finding a purchaser at the price fixed, whereupon Mrs. Minningham declined to sell, and refused to pay to the plaintiff his commissions. She died after suit brought, and her husband, as administrator, was substituted as party defendant.

The judgment is attacked solely because of the refusal by the trial judge of motions for nonsuit and for the direction of a verdict in favor of defendant. An examination of the evidence returned with the bill of exceptions shows that the denial of these motions was clearly correct.

The judgment under review should be affirmed.

For affirmance-THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, GARRISON, SWAYZE, REED, TRENCHARD, PARKER, BERGEN, VOORHEES, MINTURN, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, GRAY, CONGDON, JJ. 15.

For reversal-None.