Foley v. New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co.
Ella Foley, Administratrix, Etc., Appellant, v. New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, Respondent
Foley v. New York, 126 A. 453 (N.J. 1924)
Summary
“When the plaintiff rested her case on the trial resulting in the judgment now under review, counsel for defendant moved for a nonsuit on the ground, among others, that she had not established the negligence causing the accident; and this was true in point of fact. In this posture it became the duty of the trial judge to grant the nonsuit applied for. Instead, he overruled the motion and allowed the case to go to the jury, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff, as above stated. This was error, and requires reversal, with the award of another venire de novo.
“On the retrial under the venire de novo above awarded, the proof was identically the same as on the then last trial and called for a nonsuit, which was granted. From the judgment entered on the last trial (the one now under review) defendant appeals to this court.”
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of this court above set out.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn, Black, Katzentsach, Campbell,. Lloyd, Gardner, Van Buskiek, Clark, Kays, JJ. 13.
For reversal — Kone.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.