Sonzogni v. Sansevere
| Decision Date | 27 June 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 254.,254. |
| Parties | SONZOGNI v. SANSEVERE et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Action by Samuel Sansevere, by next friend, and others against John Sonzogni. Rule for new trial was made absolute on question of damages only. On certiorari and rule to show cause by John Sonzogni. Order to show cause discharged, and writ of certiorari refused.
Argued May term, 1928, before MINTURN, BLACK, and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Autenrieth, Gannon & Wortendyke, of Jersey City, for prosecutor.
George E. Cutley, of Jersey City, for defendants.
This is an application for a writ of certiorari to review an order made in the Hudson county court of common pleas, in an accident case, why a new trial should not be granted, on the ground of inadequacy of damages. The rule was made absolute on the question of damages only. In other words, the prosecutor applies for a writ of certiorari to review the order granting the new trial as to damages only. The writ of certiorari cannot be allowed for two substantial reasons: First, because the granting or refusing to grant a rule to show cause is a matter addressed to the discretion of the trial court. It is not reviewable upon appeal. Hickman v. Powell, 99 N. J. Law, 274, 124 A. 448; Albert v. Hart, 44 N. J. Law, 366. Second, what was said by Mr. Justice Dixon, in the case of Taylor Provision Co. v. Adams Express Co., 72 N. J. Law, 220, 65 A. 508, is applicable to the facts of this case, viz. the circuit court is a constitutional court of record, having general jurisdiction over common-law-actions, inter-parties, and proceedings therein according to the course of the common law. As such, its orders are reviewable, not by certiorari, but by writ of error (now appeal), and only after final judgment. So is the court of common pleas, which is a constitutional court proceeding according to the course of the common law.
The order to show cause, dated April 3, 1928, is discharged, and the writ of certiorari applied for refused.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Van Winkle
...v. Gaston, 24 N.J.L. 818 (E. & A. 1854); Caliopoulos v. Chagaris, 126 A. 471, 2 N.J.Misc. 998 (Sup.Ct.1924); Sonzogni v. Sansevere, 142 A. 417, 6 N.J.Misc. 675 (Sup.Ct.1928). It has also been established that the writ of Habeas corpus was a common law writ. Dickinson ads. State Bank 16 N.J.......
-
Jacquin v. Applegate
...422, 5 A.2d 750; Gaffney v. Illingsworth, 90 N.J.L. 490, 101 A. 243; Benz v. Miller, 174 A. 167, 12 N.J. Misc. 630; Sonzogni v. Sansevere, 142 A. 417, 6 N.J.Misc. 675; Cox v. Rosenvinge, 135 A. 59, 4 N.J.Misc. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, with costs. ...
-
Chavers v. McCall
... ... 220, 65 A. 508; Eder v. Hudson [County] Circuit Court, 104 [N.J.L.] 260 [140 A. 883]; Albert v. Hart, 44 [N.J.L.] 366; Sonzogni v. Sansevere [142 A. 417], 6 Misc. 675 ... "Following the procedure laid down by the Court of Errors and Appeals in the Taylor case, ... ...
-
Sansevere v. Sonzogni
...County. Action by Samuel Sansevere and others against John Sonzogni. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed. See, also, 142 A. 417. Argued January term, 1929, before GUMMERE, C. J., and PARKER and BODINE, Reynier J. Wortendyke, Jr., of Jersey City, for appellant. John J. C......