154 A. 626 (N.J.L. 1931), State v. Edwards

Citation154 A. 626, 108 N.J.L. 203
Opinion JudgePER CURIAM.
Party NameTHE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. ALEXANDER G. EDWARDS ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR
AttorneyFor the plaintiffs in error, George T. Vickers and George S. Hobart. For the defendant in error, Joseph L. Smith, prosecutor of the pleas, and Joseph E. Conlon, assistant prosecutor.
Judge PanelFor affirmance -- TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, BODINE, DALY, DONGES, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, DEAR, WELLS, JJ. 10. For reversal -- None.
Case DateApril 24, 1931
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

Page 626

154 A. 626 (N.J.L. 1931)

108 N.J.L. 203

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR,

v.

ALEXANDER G. EDWARDS ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey

April 24, 1931

Submitted February 13, 1931.

On error to Supreme Court, whose per curiam is printed in 8 N.J. Mis. R. 902.

For the plaintiffs in error, George T. Vickers and George S. Hobart.

For the defendant in error, Joseph L. Smith, prosecutor of the pleas, and Joseph E. Conlon, assistant prosecutor.

OPINION

[108 N.J.L. 204] PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the judgment should be affirmed, and see no reason to amplify the per curiam filed in the Supreme Court, in which we concur.

It is stated in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error that of the eighty-seven assignments and specifications filed in the Supreme Court, only forty-seven were argued there, as here. The brief filed in the Supreme Court has not been laid before us, but the point seems immaterial. Such points as are made before us have been duly considered, and we agree with the Supreme Court that there is no merit in any of them.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

For affirmance -- TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, BODINE, DALY, DONGES, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, DEAR, WELLS, JJ. 10.

For reversal -- None.

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • 202 A.2d 439 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1964), A--653, Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • 30 juin 1964
    ...A somewhat similar result was reached in Sandler v. Hudson and Manhattan R.R. Co., 8 N.J.Misc. 537, 151 A. 99 (Sup.Ct.1930), affirmed 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459 (E. & A.1931), where it appeared that large crowds of passengers usually and regularly congregated on defendant's station plat......
  • 622 A.2d 1295 (N.J. 1993), Lieberman v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 14 avril 1993
    ...is preventable by exercise of due care, carrier is liable); Sandler v. Hudson & Manhattan R.R. Co., 8 N.J.Misc. 537, 151 A. 99 aff'd, 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459 (E. & A.1931) (holding carrier liable when one passenger pushed another between the train and Page 1300 because carrier ha......
  • 220 A.D.2d 564, Monaco v. Harran's Transp. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • New York New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department
    • 16 octobre 1995
    ...365; Seckler v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 113 N.J.L. 299, 174 A. 501; Sandler v. Hudson & M.R. Co., 8 N.J. Misc. 537, 151 A. 99, affd. 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459). We are unpersuaded by the plaintiffs' Page 565 arguments that Harran's owed Mrs. Monaco a duty of extraordinary care, as she w......
  • 174 A. 501 (N.J.L. 1934), 81, Seckler v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 27 septembre 1934
    ...to enter. We do not think that the case of Sandler v. Hudson and Manhattan Railroad Co., 8 N.J. Mis. R. 537; affirmed (by divided court), 108 N.J.L. 203, relied upon in the plaintiff's argument, is in point, as a much different situation existed. There, the plaintiff, while waiting on the s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • 202 A.2d 439 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1964), A--653, Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • 30 juin 1964
    ...A somewhat similar result was reached in Sandler v. Hudson and Manhattan R.R. Co., 8 N.J.Misc. 537, 151 A. 99 (Sup.Ct.1930), affirmed 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459 (E. & A.1931), where it appeared that large crowds of passengers usually and regularly congregated on defendant's station plat......
  • 622 A.2d 1295 (N.J. 1993), Lieberman v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 14 avril 1993
    ...is preventable by exercise of due care, carrier is liable); Sandler v. Hudson & Manhattan R.R. Co., 8 N.J.Misc. 537, 151 A. 99 aff'd, 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459 (E. & A.1931) (holding carrier liable when one passenger pushed another between the train and Page 1300 because carrier ha......
  • 220 A.D.2d 564, Monaco v. Harran's Transp. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • New York New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department
    • 16 octobre 1995
    ...365; Seckler v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 113 N.J.L. 299, 174 A. 501; Sandler v. Hudson & M.R. Co., 8 N.J. Misc. 537, 151 A. 99, affd. 108 N.J.L. 203, 156 A. 459). We are unpersuaded by the plaintiffs' Page 565 arguments that Harran's owed Mrs. Monaco a duty of extraordinary care, as she w......
  • 174 A. 501 (N.J.L. 1934), 81, Seckler v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 27 septembre 1934
    ...to enter. We do not think that the case of Sandler v. Hudson and Manhattan Railroad Co., 8 N.J. Mis. R. 537; affirmed (by divided court), 108 N.J.L. 203, relied upon in the plaintiff's argument, is in point, as a much different situation existed. There, the plaintiff, while waiting on the s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT