Doran v. City of Asbury Park
Citation | 104 A. 130 |
Parties | DORAN et al. v. CITY OF ASBURY PARK et al. |
Decision Date | 19 June 1918 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Monmouth County.
Action by Mary J. Doran and others against the City of Asbury Park and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Durand, Ivins & Carton, of Asbury Park, for appellants.
Ward Kremer, of Asbury Park, for appellees.
The plaintiffs below, five in number, joined in one action, against the city of Asbury Park and Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the defendants below, to recover damages, resulting from water being backed up on their premises and into their cellars through the erection, by the defendants, of a detritus tank, flume, and straightway, at the head of Wesley Lake, when laying out a new road from Bond street in Asbury Park, to Main street, in front of Ocean Grove. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs and assessed the damages as follows: In favor of Mary J. Doran and John Doran, $300; Elizabeth Woehrer, executrix, $80, individually, $100; Frederick Woehrer, $00; and Louis Weidman, $157.32. A judgment was entered upon this verdict, from which an appeal has been taken to this court.
The plaintiffs were entitled to join in the action under section 4 of the new practice act (P. L. 1912, p. 377), there being a common question of law and fact arising out of the same transaction.
Although there are 13 grounds of appeal set forth in the record, the only two relied on and argued in the brief of counsel for appellants relate to and challenge the legal propriety of the rulings of the trial judge in refusing appellants' motion for a nonsuit at the close of the plaintiffs' case, and for a direction of a verdict for the defendants at the close of the entire case.
As both of these motions involve the same legal question, they will be considered together. Before doing so, it may be well to mention that an effort is made to raise the like legal question on an exception taken to the charge of the trial judge; but, as the exception taken is too broad and failed to point out with any degree of specificness to the trial judge what particular proposition of law laid down by him was erroneous, it will not be considered. It will not, therefore, avail an appellant to take a general exception to the charge of the trial judge. In order to have the exception considered by the appellate tribunal it must appear that the attention of the trial judge was specifically called to the matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ramirez v. City of Cheyenne
... ... of a swing maintained in a public park. There was judgment ... for defendant on a directed verdict, and plaintiff brings ... 317; Kehoe v ... Rutherford, 74 N.J.L. 659; 65 A. 1046; 122 Am. St. Rep ... 411; Doran v. Asbury Park, 91 N.J.L. 651, 104 A ... 130. In Hart v. Freeholders of Union, 57 N.J.L. 90, ... ...
-
Meyer v. Board of Ed., Middletown Tp., A--77
...diverted surface water by means of artificial drains onto private land; a similar situation existed in Doran v. Asbury Park, 91 N.J.L. 651, 104 A. 130 (E. & A.1918); Cochran v. Public Service Electric Co., 97 N.J.L. 480, 117 A. 620 (E. & A.1922), involved an injury sustained by contact in t......
-
Boyle v. Hudson County
...not extend to actions where the injury is the result of active wrong-doing chargeable to the corporation'. Doran v. City of Asbury Park, 91 N.J.L. 651, 104 A. 130, 131 (E. & A. 1918); Kehoe v. Borough of Rutherford, 74 N.J.L. 659, 65 A. 1046 (E. & A. 1907). See Bengivenga v. City of Plainfi......
-
Truhlar v. Borough of East Paterson, A--117
...diverted surface water by means of artificial drains onto private land; a similar situation existed in Doran v. City of Asbury Park, 91 N.J.L. 651, 104 A. 130 (E. & A.1918); Cochran v. Public Service Electric Co., 97 N.J.L. 480, 117 A. 620 (E. & A.1922), involved an injury sustained by cont......