Seitz v. Stavitsky, 65.

• Decision Date: 27 September 1934
• Docket Number: No. 65.,65.
• Parties: SEITZ v. STAVITSKY.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

174 A. 519

SEITZ

v. STAVITSKY.

No. 65.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Sept. 27, 1934.

Syllabus by the Court.

A motion for nonsuit is properly denied when the state of the proofs is such that reasonable minds could, and probably would, differ upon the questions presented by such motion.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Ruth M. Seitz, administratrix ad prosequendum of the estate of William F. Seitz, deceased, against Abe Stavitsky. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Joseph Coult, of Newark, for appellant.

Merritt Lane and John J. Clancy, both of Newark, for respondent.

CAMPBELL, Chancellor.

The judgment appealed from is for damages for the death of respondent's decedent resulting from injuries inflicted when a motorcar operated by him came into collision with a like vehicle operated by the appellant: the happening taking place at and about the junction of two highways crossing each other at right angles.

The sole alleged error which we are called upon to review is the refusal of the trial judge to nonsuit the plaintiff below, at the end of her case, upon the grounds that no negligence of the defendant had been shown and that plaintiff's decedent was guilty of negligence contributing to the happening.

A most cursory examination of the proofs shows that a situation was presented upon which reasonable minds could, and probably would, differ as to both questions presented by the reasons advanced under the motion for nonsuit, and, when that is the condition of the evidence, a motion for nonsuit is properly denied. Mahnken v. Monmouth, 62 N. J. Law, 404, 41 A. 921; Bauer v. North Jersey St Rwy. Co., 74 N. J. Law, 624, 65 A. 1037; Napurana v. Young, 74 N. J. Law, 627, 65 A. 1052; Turner v. Hall, 74 N. J. Law, 214, 64 A. 1060; Weston v. Benecke, 82 N. J. Law, 445, 82 A. 878, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 11; Pox v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 84 N. J. Law, 726, 87 A. 339; Fagan v. Central R. R., 94 N. J. Law, 454, 111 A. 32; Alvino v. Public Service Rwy. Co., 97 N. J. Law, 526, 117 A. 709; Kerner v. Zerr, 103 N. J. Law, 424, 135 A. 866.

Finding no error in the matters before us, the judgment under review is affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, the CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, and PERSKIE, and Judges VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, and WELLS—15.

For reversal: None.