Vattani v. Damiano
| Decision Date | 17 February 1931 |
| Citation | 153 A. 841 |
| Parties | VATTANI v. DAMIANO. LO RE v. SAME. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Actions by Mario Vattani, administrator ad pros., etc., and by Margaret Lo Re, administratrix, etc., against Bonifacio Damiano, administrator, etc. On motion to strike out an amendment to the answer.
Motion denied.
Milton M. Unger and Leonard J. Emmerglick, both of Newark, for the motion.
Collins & Corbin and John M. Emery, both of Newark, opposed.
SMITH, C. C. J., sitting as Supreme Court Commissioner.
By consent the answer was amended setting up a new defense. A motion is now made to strike out this defense as frivolous.
The plaintiffs bring their suit under the Death Act () to recover damages by reason of the death of the deceased while riding in an automobile operated by the defendant's intestate. The ninth separate defense sets up the facts that a judgment was obtained against the New York & Long Branch Railroad arising out of the same accident, and that it has been satisfied.
The negligence, I assume, under which the recovery was had against the New York & Long Branch Railroad, was a failure to properly guard the crossing.
The judgment, while entered before a jury in open court, was by consent and by stipulation. The judgment was amended so as to provide that the entry and satisfaction thereof should be without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to maintain and prosecute an action or actions against any person or persons other than the defendants therein, for damages resulting from the death of the plaintiff's decedent caused by the collision referred to in the complaint; and without prejudice to the right of plaintiff to receive satisfaction and take proceeding to satisfy any judgments which may be secured by plaintiff in any such actions against any person or persons other than the defendants therein.
The ninth separate defense charges that the satisfaction of said judgment discharges any further claim for damage against the defendant herein; the plaintiff being entitled to but one satisfaction for the loss. Were it not for the amendment to the judgment, the satisfaction of the judgment would discharge the defendant, who was one of the tort-feasors, as the law is undoubtedly well settled that satisfaction against one or more joint or several tort-feasors discharges any other tort-feasor for the same claim for damage. The question here presented is whether or not the reservation or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adolph Gottscho, Inc. v. American Marking Corp.
...a release of two of the four defendant joint tort-feasors and legally operated as a release of all of them. See Vattani v. Damiano, 153 A. 841, 9 N.J.Misc. 290 (Sup.Ct.1931) . But cf. Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67, 85, 110 A.2d 24 The history, purpose and limit......
-
Jacobson v. Parrill
...Ry. Co., 38 Tex.Civ.App. 337, 85 S.W. 430; Eberle v. Sinclair Prairie Oil Co., 10 Cir., 120 F.2d 746, 135 A.L.R. 1494; Vattani v. Damiano, 153 A. 841, 9 N.J.Misc. 290; and Ford Motor Company v. Tomlinson, 6 Cir., 229 F.2d The plaintiff raises the question whether a district court has jurisd......
-
Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield
...$2,500 payment received from the two settlers, this on the authority of an opinion of the former Circuit Court in Vattani v. Damiano, 153 A. 841, 842, 9 N.J.Misc. 290 (1931). In the Vattani case, however, the consent judgment against one of the two tortfeasors expressly determined both that......
-
Simpson v. Plyler, 449
...Oil Co., 171 Okl. 565, 43 P.2d 434 (1935); Cain v. Quannah Light and Ice Co., 131 Okl. 25, 267 P. 641 (1928); Vattani v. Damiano, 9 N.J.Misc. 290, 153 A. 841 (1931). Plaintiff relies on Colby v. Walker, 86 N.H. 568, 171 A.774, 104 A.L.R. 840 (1934), which is often cited by text writers as s......