TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bliss v. Bergen County Traction Co.

ALEXANDER F. BLISS, IN ERROR v. THE BERGEN COUNTY TRACTION COMPANY, IN ERROR

Bliss v. Bergen Cnty. Traction Co., 46 A. 624 (N.J. 1900)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 18, 1900
Judges
Garrison
Citations
46 A. 62464 N.J.L. 60135 Vroom 6011900 N.J. LEXIS 139
Headnotes
It is the province of the jury to pass upon testimony from which the negligence of the defendant may be inferred.
Summary
On error to the Supreme Court. This cause was tried at the April Term, 1899, of the Hudson Circuit Court, before Mr. Justice Lippincott and a jury, and a judgment of non-suit ordered.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Garrison

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

*602 The opinion of the court was delivered by' Garrison, J.

Error is assigned by the plaintiff to thenonsuit directed in the court below.

When this case was before this court upon a previous-occasion, Judge Nixon, delivering the opinion of the court, said that the trial judge had not erred in refusing to direct a nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff’s testimony. “There was,” he said, “ proof at that stage of the trial to show that the signals had misled the plaintiff below to his injury, and evidence had been given as to the possible existence of certain causes which may have led to the derangement of the-signals and whether the conditions actually existed, and if existing, were sufficient to cause the accident, and if they were sufficient, then whether they were in any way chargeable to the negligence of the traction company, were questions-already raised by the evidence, which was clearly the province of the jury to pass upon.” The. facts stated in that opinion and constituting the plaintiff’s case are, to all intents, the same as those that appeared in the testimony now before-us, and the language quoted so aptly and fully disposes of the present assignment that it may well be adopted without alteration in reversing the nonsuit that appears on this record.

For affirmance—None.

For reversal—Magie (Chancellor), Depue (Chief Justice), Van Syckel, Dixon, Garrison, Gummere, Ludlow, Collins, Bogert, Hendrickson, Adams, Vredenburgh, Voorhees. 13.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1902: 119022026peak 1902 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Paynter v. Bridgeton & Millville Traction Co.52 A. 367 (N.J. 1902)

Most recent

  1. Paynter v. Bridgeton & Millville Traction Co.52 A. 367 (N.J. 1902)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list