Gaffney v. Illingsworth
| Decision Date | 18 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 66.,66. |
| Citation | 101 A. 243,90 N.J.Law 490 |
| Parties | GAFFNEY v. ILLINGSWORTH. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Circuit Court, Essex County.
Action by John Gaffney against William H. Illingsworth. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
M. Casewell Heine, of Newark, for appellant. Grosken & Moriarty, of Newark, for appellee.
WALKER, Chancellor. This action was brought in the Essex county circuit court for damages for personal injury suffered by the alleged negligence of defendant. It was tried before Judge Dungan, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $190.25, and costs. Rules to show cause were taken by plaintiff and defendant, respectively, and, upon argument, the court discharged defendant's rule and made an order granting to plaintiff a new trial as to damages only, provided that, if the defendant paid $480.50 within ten days, the plaintiff's rule should be discharged. The defendant did not make the payment, and the plaintiff's rule became absolute. The propriety of the circuit court judge's action in this regard is drawn in question by the appeal.
The defendant argues that upon common-law principles a trial court has no power to set aside a verdict as inadequate and to grant a new trial as to damages only. Without pausing to consider the force of these particular objections, a perfect answer is found in the practice act of 1912 (P. L. p. 377), which provides, in section 32, that the Supreme Court shall prescribe rules for that court and for the circuit and common pleas courts, and that such rules shall supersede (so far as they conflict with) statute and common-law regulations theretofore existing, and that until such rules be made the rules thereto annexed shall be deemed the rules of the court. Rules 72 and 73, at page 397, are as follows:
The Supreme Court in 1913 made rules to take effect December 1, 1913, and, among them, adopted rules 72 and 73 annexed to the practice act of 1912, making them rules 131 and 132 of those then promulgated, and provided in rule 219 that the rules of the Supreme Court should, so, far as appropriate, be applicable to the practice of the several circuit courts. The appropriateness and applicability of these rules cannot be doubted. Therefore the trial judge had the right to grant a new trial on the sole question of the inadequacy of the damages by virtue of the statute and rules mentioned, the question of damages being clearly separable from that of liability, and the only question remaining is: Had he the power to couple the rale for a new trial with terms, namely, that if the defendant paid a certain sum within a specified time, the rule should be discharged?
Counsel for appellant contends that the imposition of the terms mentioned upon the defendant was unwarranted. He cites no authority to sustain this proposition.
Quite aside from any question of the Court's inherent power to impose terms, the appellant is here again met with a positive rule of the Supreme Court which provides that the judge to whom an application for a rule to show cause whether a new trial should be granted shall exercise the same discretion in granting such rule as was then exercised by the court, and shall prescribe the terms, that is, the terms upon which the rule may be granted. Supreme Court Rules 1913, No. 122.
The power of the court in granting a new trial upon the ground that the damages are excessive, upon terms that a new trial shall be had unless the plaintiff will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hager v. Weber
...ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence was reviewable on error for abuse of discretion. Gaffney v. Illingsworth, 90 N.J.L. 490, 101 A. 243 (E. & A.1917); Robinson v. Payne, 99 N.J.L. 135, 122 A. 882 (E. & A.1923); Gee v. Moss, 108 N.J.L. 160, 156 A. 458 (E. & A.1931)......
-
Fisch v. Manger
...grant of a new trial upon the defendants' failure to consent to a prescribed increase in the verdict. But see Gaffney v. Illingsworth, 90 N.J.L. 490, 492, 101 A. 243 (E. & A.1917); Esposito v. Lazar, 2 N.J. 257, 259, 66 A.2d 172 (1949); Elvin v. Public Service Coordinated Transport, 4 N.J.S......
-
Orientale v. Jennings
...assessed by the jury." Id. at 201, 100 A. 229.In 1917, additur was also an accepted practice in this State. Gaffney v. Illingsworth, 90 N.J.L. 490, 492, 101 A. 243 (E. & A. 1917). Forty years later, for the first time, this Court addressed a constitutional challenge to additur based on the ......
-
Anderson v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
... ... larger sum, was within the discretion of the trial court ... In ... Gaffney v. Illingsworth, 90 N. J. Law, 490, 101 A ... 243, the court said: ""When a new trial is granted ... because the damages are inadequate, the ... ...