Wilson v. Mason

• Decision Date: 19 September 1929
• Docket Number: No. 103.,103.
• Citation: 147 A. 235
• Parties: WILSON et al. v. MASON et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

147 A. 235

WILSON et al.

v. MASON et al.

No. 103.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Sept. 19, 1929.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Action by Caroline J. Wilson and others against Horace Mason and Henry J. Mason. Verdicts for plaintiffs. On defendants' rule to show cause. Rule to show cause made absolute as to defendant Henry J. Mason, and discharged as to defendant Horace Mason.

Argued May term, 1929, before PARKER, BLACK, and BODINE, JJ.

Palmer & Cooper, of Newark, for plaintiffs.

Kalisch & Kalisch, of Newark, for defendants.

BLACK, J. This was an accident case, a collision between two automobiles, brought to recover damages for personal injuries. The collision occurred on April 30, 1927. The plaintiff Joseph Le Lerre, the owner and driver of an automobile, while turning around on Washington avenue in the town of Nutley, was struck by the defendant Horace Mason, driving a Nash sedan car in a northerly direction on Washington avenue, causing the injuries to the plaintiffs complained of. Negligence in the complaint and in the counterclaim is charged against both parties. The trial resulted in verdicts for the plaintiffs and against both defendants. The defendants obtained a rule to show cause, and the defendant Henry J. Mason writes down two reasons for a new trial:

First. Error by the trial court in refusing to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant Henry J. Mason, on the ground that Horace Mason was not his agent, at the time of the accident. The defendants are father and son.

Second. The verdict of the jury was against the great weight of the evidence, on the question of agency, as between the defendants; the rule to show cause being limited to the question of agency of the son Horace Mason. By a written stipulation only such testimony as relates to the agency of the defendant and son Horace Mason is submitted to the court for decision, and the reasons assigned for a new trial under the rule. As stated, the two defendants are father and son. Horace Mason, the son, was driving the Nash sedan car at the time of the accident; Henry J. Mason, the father, was the owner of the car.

The dominant facts on the point of agency are not in dispute, and they are to the effect that the defendant Henry J. Mason, the father, was the owner of the Nash sedan car being driven by his son, the defendant Horace Mason. The son had asked the father to allow him to use the car to go to church and to confession, on the night of the accident. After confession, the son took a drive with two friends going north from the...