Smigielski v. Nowak
Decision Date | 13 February 1940 |
Docket Number | No. 409.,409. |
Citation | 124 N.J.L. 235,11 A.2d 251 |
Parties | SMIGIELSKI et al. v. NOWAK et al. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Union County.
Action by Raymond Smigielski, an infant by his next friend Paul Smigielski, individually, against Paul Nowak and May Nowak, first name being fictitious and unknown to the plaintiffs, to recover for injuries caused by a dog. From a judgment for the plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Appeal dismissed.
Argued October term, 1939, before TRENCHARD, CASE, and HEHER, JJ.
James T. Kirk and Leo B. Wojcik, both of Elizabeth, for plaintiffs-respondents.
Joseph J. Mutnick, of Plainfield, for defendant-appellant.
This is an appeal from a judgment for the plaintiffs and against the defendant in the District Court of the First Judicial District of the County of Union. There is an agreed state of case which recites the plaintiff's proofs as follows:
The stipulation further recites that the evidence on the part of the defendants was After plaintiffs' evidence was in, appellant moved for a nonsuit upon the grounds that the infant plaintiff (1) was not an invitee and (2) if an invitee exceeded the scope of his invitation; and at the close of the case appellant moved for a direction of verdict upon the same grounds. Both motions were denied. Exceptions to the rulings were asked and granted. The court gave judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant appellant, and to that ruling an exception was prayed and granted.
We have included in the foregoing references all of the contents of the agreed state of case. It is essential that this court be given, on the appeal, a specification of the determinations or directions of the District Court with respect to which the appellant is dissatisfied. Supreme Court Rule 145, N.J.S.A. tit. 2. We have received nothing of the kind. The points argued on behalf of appellant are:
If it be that these are presented as the determinations complained of, we note that the objections...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parking, Inc. v. Dalrymple
...he fell over a retaining wall into a ramp which ran into the basement of a building adjoining the parking lot. See also, Smigielski v. Nowak, 124 N.J.L. 235, 11 A.2d 251; Underhill v. Shactman, 337 Mass. 730, 151 N.E.2d 287; Goldsmith v. Cody, supra; Gray v. Watson, 54 Ga.App. 885, 189 S.E.......
-
Barnard v. Trenton-New Brunswick Theatres Co.
...82 A.2d 4 (App.Div.1951); Walec v. Jersey State Electric Co., Inc., 125 N.J.L. 90, 13 A.2d 301 (Sup.Ct.1940). Smigielski v. Nowak, 124 N.J.L. 235, 11 A.2d 251 (Sup.Ct.1940); Feingold v. S. S. Kresge Co., 116 N.J.L. 146, 183 A. 170 (E. & A.1936); MacDonough v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 91 N.J.L. ......
-
Goldsmith v. Cody
...accompanying the parking lessee, and is generally held to be an invitee. Meyer v. Manzer, 179 Misc. 355, 39 N.Y.S.2d 5; Smigielski v. Nowak, 124 N.J.L. 235, 11 A.2d 251; Gray v. Watson, 54 Ga.App. 885, 189 S.E. 616. See, also, 14 A.L.R.2d We believe that plaintiff presented ample evidence f......
- Plass v. Town Of Bloomfield.