Swiencicki v. Wieczerzak
| Decision Date | 02 February 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 27.,27. |
| Citation | 140 A. 248 |
| Parties | SWIENCICKI et ux. v. WIECZERZAK. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Action by Frank Swiencicki and wife against Frank Wieczerzak. Judgment for plaintiff wife only, and defendant obtained a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. Rule made absolute.
Argued October term, 1927, before GUMMERE, C. J., and BLACK and LLOYD, JJ.
Weinberger & Weinberger, of Passaic, for plaintiffs.
Feder & Rinzler, of Passaic, for defendant.
The declaration in this case consists of two counts. In the first count, it is alleged, that on the 18th day of October, 1925, the defendant in the premises at No. 240 Wallington avenue, Wellington, N. J., did commit an outrageous assault and battery upon the plaintiff Mary Swiencicki, wife of the plaintiff Frank Swiencicki. In the second count, it is alleged that, the husband plaintiff, Frank Swiencicki, lost and is deprived and will be deprived of the comfort, association, and assistance of his wife; that he has expended sums of money for medicinals, medical aid, treatment, and attention to his wife; that he has expended divers sums of money in order to hire and engage help to assist in household duties.
The trial resulted in two verdicts, one of no cause of action in favor of Frank Wieczerzak and against Frank Swiencicki, and another in the sum of $1,200 in favor of the plaintiff Mary Swiencicki and against the defendant Frank Wieczerzak. The defendant obtained a rule to show cause and writes down seven reasons for a new trial. Only one need be noticed, viz., the fourth: "These two verdicts are absolutely irreconcilable." For this reason, the rule will be made absolute, under the case of Lanning v. Trenton, etc., Traction Corporation (N. J. Sup.) 130 A. 444. That case is directly in point. For this reason, the rule to show cause will be made absolute.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guinn v. Millard Truck Lines, Inc.
...and obligations of the parties.' Lanning v. Trenton & Mercer County Traction Corp., 3 N.J.Misc. 1006, 130 A. 444; Swiencicki v. Wieczerzak, 140 A. 248, 6 N.J.Misc. 145; Watkins v. Myers, 12 N.J. 71, 95 A.2d 705, 36 A.L.R.2d 1330; Coleman v. New York City Transit Authority, 28 Misc.2d 694, 2......
-
Chance v. Lawry's, Inc.
...Corporation, 3 N.J.Misc. 1006, 130 A. 444; Henderson v. Abbotts Alderney Dairies, Inc., 7 N.J.Misc. 454, 146 A. 47; Swiencicki v. Wieczerzak, 6 N.J.Misc. 145, 140 A. 248; Watkins v. Myers, 12 N.J. 71, 95 A.2d 705, 36 A.L.R.2d 1330; Berry v. Foster, 199 Tenn. 352, 287 S.W.2d 16; and Coleman ......
-
Hill v. Wilson
...the inconsistency, on the theory that it is a jury function and not the judge's job to determine what the facts were. Swiencicki v. Wieczerzak, 140 A. 248, 6 N.J.Misc. 145; Reilly v. Shapmar Realty Corp., 267 App. Div. 198, 45 N.Y.S.2d 356; Gladd v. Paslawski, 157 Pa.Super. 489, 43 A.2d 570......
-
Hill v. Wilson
... ... inconsistency, on the theory that it is a jury function and ... not the judge's job to determine what the facts were ... Swiencicki v. Wieczerzak, 6 N. J. Misc ... 145, 140 A. 248; Reilly v. Shapmar Realty ... Co., 267 A.D. 198, 45 N.Y.S. 2d 356; Gladd v ... Paslawski, 157 ... ...