Goheen v. Goheen
| Citation | 154 A. 393 |
| Parties | GOHEEN et al. v. GOHEEN. |
| Decision Date | 15 April 1931 |
| Court | New Jersey Circuit Court |
GOHEEN et al.
v.
GOHEEN.
Circuit Court of New Jersey, Union County.
April 15, 1931.
Action at law by Sallie Goheen and Lillian Goheen, an infant, by Sallie Goheen, her next friend, against Harry Goheen. On defendant's motion to strike out the summons and complaint and certain interrogatories served by the plaintiffs on the defendant.
Motion to strike out the interrogatories granted, and motion to strike out the summons and complaint as to the plaintiff Sallie Goheen denied, and motion granted as to the plaintiff Lillian Goheen.
Collins & Corbin, of Jersey City (Howard F. McIntyre, of Jersey City, of counsel), for the motion.
Wilbur A. Heisley, of Newark, opposed.
STEIN, Judge of Union County Court of Common Pleas, designated to try Circuit and Supreme Court issues.
The above action arises out of an accident which occurred on September 3, 1928, while the plaintiffs were riding in the automobile of the defendant. Sallie Goheen is the mother of the defendant, and Lillian Goheen is his minor daughter, aged thirteen.
The matter comes before the court on motion to strike out the summons and complaint as well as certain interrogatories served by the plaintiffs on the defendant.
The interrogatories are six in number and read as follows:
"1. Were you at the time of the happening alleged in the plaintiffs' complaint insured by any insurance company against any liability imposed by law upon you for any damage inflicted by you upon property or person by reason of the operation of the car in which you and the plaintiffs were then and there being transported?
"2. If your answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in the affirmative state what was the name of the insurance company and of the automobile and if you held a policy of insurance state its date, its number, and if said policy had previously expired, and if it had been renewed by a certificate attached thereto, state the date of the certificate as well as its expiration date?
"3. To the best of your knowledge and belief was the said policy in full force and effect at the time of the alleged happening?
"4. Had said policy ever been cancelled?
"5. Was the premium fully paid up?
"6. Was the amount of the insurance mentioned in said policy as follows: For any damage to property a sum not in excess of One thousand dollars; For personal injury to one person a sum not in excess of Five thousand dollars; and for all damage to property or persons a sum not exceeding Ten thousand dollars?"
Whether defendant was insured at the time of the accident, the name of the company, and whether the insurance policy was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lucas v. District Court of Pueblo County in Tenth Judicial Dist., 18859
...the amendments which liberalized the Federal Rules and the decision seems to be predicated upon this fact. The case of Goheen v. Goheen, 154 A. 393, 9 N.J.Misc. 507, also denied the discovery and did so on the ground that 'the interrogatories propounded are not material to the issue and are......
-
Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Murray, B--1170
...999 (1952); Hardware Mut. Casualty Co. v. Hopkins, 105 N.H. 231, 196 A.2d 66, 13 A.L.R.3d 817 (1963); Goheen v. Goheen, 9 N.J.Misc. 507, 154 A. 393 (1931); Gold v. Jacobi, 52 Misc.2d 491, 276 N.Y.S.2d 309 (1966); Walker v. Allstate Ins. Co., 7 Ohio App.2d 85, 219 N.E.2d 61 (1966); Carman v.......
-
Fitzgerald v. Valdez, 8208
...is living with and being supported by his parent is not a bar to the suit. Farrar v. Farrar, supra; Goheen v. Goheen, 9 N.J.Misc. 507, 154 A. 393 (1931); Taylor v. Taylor, 360 Mo. 994, 232 S.W.2d 382 (1950); Ledgerwood v. Ledgerwood, 114 Cal.App. 538, 300 P. 144 (1931). Such an arrangement ......
-
Mecke v. Bahr, 35689
...v. Penny, D.C., 29 F.R.D. 159. See, also, Langlois v. Allen, D.C., 30 F.R.D. 67; McNelley v. Perry, D.C., 18 F.R.D. 360; Goheen v. Goheen, 154 A. 393, 9 N.J. Misc. 507; Roembke v. Wisdom, D.C., 22 F.R.D. 197; State ex rel. Allen v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 69 Nev. 196, 245 P.2d 999; Ver......