Zyk v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.

• Decision Date: 19 September 1935
• Docket Number: No. 437.,437.
• Citation: 180 A. 628
• Parties: ZYK v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

180 A. 628

ZYK

v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA.

No. 437.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Sept. 19, 1935.

Appeal from District Court of Hoboken.

Action by John Zyk against the Prudential Insurance Company of America. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

Argued May term, 1935, before TRENCHARD, HEHER, and PERSKIE, JJ.

Perkins, Drewen & Nugent, of Jersey City (Randolph Perkins and John Drewen, both of Jersey City, of counsel), for appellant.

Morris Edelstein, of Jersey City (Morris Pearlman, of Jersey City, of counsel), for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff below sued on a group disability insurance policy issued by the defendant to the employees of the Martin Dennis Company, of which plaintiff claimed to be one, under the terms of which policy he was entitled to an indemnity of $25 per week for thirteen consecutive weeks if, after being employed by the company for eleven years, he contracted sickness and was "thereby wholly and continuously disabled and prevented from performing any and every duty pertaining to his occupation or employment."

His state of demand claimed that while so employed, "on or about December 1st, 1933," he became sick, causing him to become physically incapacitated, and claimed such weekly indemnity for "thirteen consecutive weeks from the date of his illness."

The judge, sitting without a jury, apparently found for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed; but no copy of the judgment rendered, such as is essential to a review by appeal, is presented with the state of the case. We have nothing in this respect except the proceedings at the trial taken by the stenographer, and these show this and only this: "Judgment reserved awaiting submission of briefs. Judgment in favor of plaintiff for amount of $325, together with costs amounting to $20.85 under date of April 16, 1935."

Now the rule is that an appeal will be dismissed when a certified copy of transcript of judgment record is not brought up with the state of the case. Esler v. Camden, etc., R. Co., 71 N. J. Law, 180, 58 A. 113; Katzin v. Jenny, 74 N. J. Law, 131, 65 A. 192; Smith Co. v. Oathout, 75 N. J. Law, 438, 67 A. 1023; Calhoon v. Buhre, 75 N. J. Law, 439, 67 A. 1068; Maccia v. Stanzione, 84 N. J. Law, 509, 87 A. 75; Galvin v. Ostrander Fire Brick Co., 84 N. J. Law, 530, 87 A. 84.

It would seem, therefore, that the appeal must be dismissed, and such will be the order.

We remark, however, that in the examination of the case...