Canin v. Kesse, 25/403, 25/404.

• Decision Date: 04 September 1942
• Docket Number: 25/403, 25/404.
• Parties: CANIN v. KESSE (two cases).
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

28 A.2d 68
20 N.J.Misc. 371

CANIN
v.
KESSE (two cases).

25/403, 25/404.

District Court of Clifton, New Jersey.

Sept. 4, 1942.

28 A.2d 68

Actions by Marvin Canin and by Samuel Canin against Henry Kesse for injuries and damage sustained in a collision between a motor vehicle and a bus driven by defendant. On motion that judgment be entered in favor of defendant.

28 A.2d 69

Judgment of "no cause of action" in favor of defendant entered in each case.

Fred Frieman, of Newark, for plaintiffs.

Henry H. Fryling, of Newark, for defendant.

COLLESTER, District Court Judge.

These matters come before this Court upon defendant's motion for a judgment in each case as a matter of law. The essential facts have been presented to the Court by stipulation of the parties from which the following are pertinent to the issue. On October 4th, 1940, the defendant, a bus operator for the Public Service Co-ordinated Transport, while operating his employer's bus, collided with a motor vehicle owned by the plaintiff, Marvin Canin, and operated by the plaintiff, Samuel Canin. On November 15th, 1940, the plaintiffs brought individual suits against the Public Service Co-ordinated Transport in the First District Court of the City of Newark which resulted in verdicts in favor of the bus company. (For brevity, the actions instituted in the First District Court of Newark are hereinafter referred to as the "Newark cases" and the Public Service Co-ordinated Transport as the Public Service.")

On October 22nd, 1941 the plaintiffs brought their present individual suits in this Court against the defendant, Henry Kesse, the bus operator.

The stipulation entered into between the parties provides that the states of demand in the Newark cases and the states of demand in the cases in this Court are to be considered as evidence and that the facts alleged therein are to be considered true for the purposes of this motion.

The motion now before this Court is that judgment should be entered in favor of the defendant on the ground that the issues raised are res adjudicata.

An examination of the pleadings filed in the causes of action tried and disposed of in the First District Court of the City of Newark and the pleadings filed in the actions sub judice, show that in every instance the plaintiffs base their respective claims upon the alleged negligence of the defendant, Henry Kesse, who was the agent and servant of the bus company.

The doctrine of res adjudicata, as defined by our Court of Errors...