Sardino v. Agnellino, 47.
| Decision Date | 22 September 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 47.,47. |
| Citation | 194 A. 137,119 N.J.L. 7 |
| Parties | SARDINO v. AGNELLINO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
A verdict should never be directed for one party unless the evidence is such that no view that the jury may lawfully take of It favorable to the other party can be sustained.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Essex County.
Suit by Zubito Sardino against Vin-cenza Agnellino, otherwise known as Vin-cenza Galliotto. From a judgment in favor of the defendant on a directed verdict, the plaintiff appeals.
Judgment reversed and record remitted for new trial.
Samuel Press, of Newark, for appellant. Pellegrino J. Pellechia, Jr., of Newark (Frank Cossoline, of counsel), for respondent.
The plaintiff below appeals from a judgment entered upon a verdict against him and in favor of the defendant, with costs, in the circuit court of Essex county, and contends that the trial court's action in directing the verdict against him was erroneous.
Plaintiff sued defendant for $1,500 loaned to defendant over a period of time and for which she (the defendant) gave plaintiff the following paper writing:
The complaint further alleges that the defendant did not require the further sum of $1,500 from the plaintiff for the purpose of paying off the mortgage held by D'Onofrio; that defendant refused to deliver to the plaintiff a bond and mortgage as agreed by her, whereupon demand was made for the return of the $1,500 loaned to defendant and, upon her refusal to pay, this suit to recover the same was started.
There is a second count which is in effect one for money had and received, demanding judgment against the defendant for $1,500, with interest from July 31, 1934.
The case for the plaintiff consisted of testimony by the plaintiff, his wife, Josephine Sardino, the attorney for the plaintiff who drew the paper writing, and of the paper writing itself. The testimony and documentary evidence tends to show that on the day stated in the writing the plaintiff paid to the defendant $500 in cash which, together with other payments theretofore made, amounted to $1,500, the sum acknowledged in the paper writing to have been received by the defendant. The testimony also tended to show that the further sum of $1,500 was not required by the defendant and that she refused to repay the $1,500 advanced or to otherwise secure it. That proof we believe made a case for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shappell v. Apex Express Inc.
...therefrom is such that no view which the jury might lawfully take of it favorable to the other party would be sustained. Sardino v. Agnellino, 119 N.J.L. 7, 194 A. 137.’ 2. Thus, as to the quantum of proof, we think that this case falls into the ‘ordinary run of highway collision cases' in ......
-
Levine v. Bochiaro
...properly denied. Mazanek v. Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines, Err. & App. 1940, 125 N.J.L. 394, 15 A.2d 885; Sardino v. Agnellino, Err. & App. 1937, 119 N.J.L. 7, 194 A. 137. ‘It is established that the finding of the District Court upon questions of fact will not be reviewed on appeal b......
-
Scamporino v. Chapman Chevrolet Co.
...inferences to be drawn therefrom favorable to the plaintiffs, would be sustained and hence the nonsuit was proper. Sardino v. Agnellino, 119 N.J.L. 7, 194 A. 137. Cf. Shappell v. Apex Express, Inc., 131 N.J.L. 583, 589, 37 A.2d 849. There is no basis in the proofs and in the applicable law ......
-
Dobrow v. Hertz
...therefrom is such that no view which the jury might lawfully take of it favorable to the other party would be sustained. Sardino v. Agnellino, 119 N.J.L. 7, 194 A. 137. With these principles in mind, we turn to the evidence in the case at bar. We shall not attempt to state it in detail. Suf......