Pull v. Nagle, 96.
Decision Date | 29 September 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 96.,96. |
Citation | 156 A. 271 |
Parties | PULL v. NAGLE. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Suit by Mary Pull against George Nagle, as executor of the estate of Paul B. Stetka, deceased. On defendant's rule to show cause why an assumed verdict for plaintiff should not be set aside.
Rule discharged.
See, also, 151 A. 385, 8 N. J. Misc. R. 653.
Argued May term, 1931, before CAMPBELL, LLOYD, and BODINE, JJ.
James A. Major, of Hackensack, and William George, of Jersey City, for the rule.
John H. Sheridan, of Union City, opposed.
This was a suit to recover from the estate of a deceased attorney the loss to the plaintiff through his investment of her funds in second and subsequent mortgages instead of first mortgages.
There is nothing in the record to show either a verdict or judgment.
The rule to show cause allowed to defendant assumes a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff below calls this to our attention, but apparently makes no point of it.
We are asked to set aside such assumed verdict:
(1) Because of error in the trial court refusing to nonsuit or direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. We think this is without substance. There were proofs warranting submission of this point to the jury.
(2) Because it was error to refuse to nonsuit and to direct a verdict upon the ground that the plaintiff had ratified the action of defendant's decedent. For the reasons previously expressed, we think there was no error, in this action.
(3) The trial court erred in admitting the evidence of one Kappes respecting conversations with the defendant's decedent because Kappes was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Callen v. Gill
...matters or when essential to the ends of justice, is disapproved; but the court's ruling was not judicial error. Pull v. Nagle, 156 A. 271, 9 N.J.Misc. 987 (Sup.Ct.1931). Appellant's second point is that the testimony by the defendant of statements made by Mr. Barrow and the testimony by Mr......