Ellis v. The F.L.C. Martin Automobile Company

• Citation: Ellis v. The F.L.C. Martin Automobile Company, 72 A. 438, 77 N.J.L. 339 (N.J. 1909)
• Decision Date: 23 February 1909
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: ALFRED L. ELLIS v. THE F.L.C. MARTIN AUTOMOBILE COMPANY

72 A. 438

77 N.J.L. 339

ELLIS

v. F. L. C. MARTIN AUTOMOBILE CO.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

April 7, 1909.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Replevin by Alfred L. Ellis against the F. L. C. Martin Automobile Company.Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant obtained a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted for newly discovered evidence.Rule made absolute.

Argued November term, 1908, before GUMMERE, C. J., and SWAXZE and TRENCHARD, JJ.

George S. Silzer, for plaintiff.Reed & Cod dington, for defendant.

TRENCHARD, J.The plaintiff, Alfred L. Ellis, was the owner of an automobile.The defendant ran a garage, with a repair department, at Plainfield.On June 18, 1907, the plaintiff left his automobile at the defendant's garage for repairs.Certain repairs, hereinafter more particularly stated, were made.Later, when the plaintiff called for the machine, the company declined to let him have it unless he would pay the bill for the repairs, which he declined to do.Thereupon the plaintiff caused to be issued a writ of replevin.The defendant company gave bond and held the car, and this suit resulted.The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, whereupon the defendant obtained this rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted upon the ground of newly discovered evidence.

According to the plaintiff's testimony at the trial, the automobile was left with the defendant company only for the purpose of having an old tire retreaded.According to the testimony on behalf of the defendant company, it was there for general repairs.It was undisputed that in fact the car was repaired generally by the defendant company, including repairs to, and new parts for, the engine.But it was contended by the plaintiff that the machine was in good condition when left with the defendant, and that no repairs were necessary and none were ordered excepting that to the tire, and that the repairs to and new parts for the engine were rendered necessary only by the negligence of the defendant company in handling the machine while in their care.It will thus be seen that the condition of the plaintiff's car when it was left with the defendant was material to the issue, not only as bearing upon the value of the car, but as tending to show for what purpose it was left with the defendant and what repairs were ordered by the plaintiff.

In order to support his contention that it was in good condition, the plaintiff testified that he was a physician in active practice;...