TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Harrington v. Jagmetty

HARRY W. HARRINGTON AND ANNA HARRINGTON, IN ERROR v. JOSHUA JAGMETTY AND SUSAN A. JAGMETTY, IN ERROR

Harrington v. Jagmetty, 83 A. 880 (N.J. 1912)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 19, 1912
Judges
Voobhees
Citations
83 A. 88083 N.J.L. 54854 Vroom 5481912 N.J. LEXIS 175
Headnotes
Since the passage of the Married Women’s acts, a husband is not 'liable for the torts of his wife, growing out of the conduct by her of her own business, or arising from the management by her of her separate property.
Summary
On error to the Atlantic County Circuit Court. Two suits were instituted in the Circuit Court of Atlantic county against Joshua Jagmetty and Susan A. Jagmetty, his wife, one by Anna Harrington to recover for personal injuries received by her in an elevator accident at the hotel known as Elmont Hall, wherein she was a guest, and the other by Harry W. Harrington, her husband, for .loss occasioned to him thereby. The two suits were tried together. The trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the defendant Joshua Jagmetty, and the jury disagreed as to the liability of the defendant Susan A. Jagmetty. The only assignment of error rests upon the exception taken to the action of the court in directing the jury to render a verdict in favor of the defendant Joshua Jagmetty. Mrs. Harrington, the female plaintiff, for the purpose of reaching her room on the top floor of the hotel, took the elevator. When the top floor had been reached, the car was brought to a full stop, and the operator opened the door and stepped out. The plaintiff attempted to leave the car also, and had placed one foot on the landing floor, when the elevator started downward, and when the cage had descended about half its height below the floor, the operator called to her to step hack and then pushed her hack into the car and then he stopped the movement of the car. Mrs. Harrington, meanwhile, had fallen and fractured her leg in two places at the ankle, and sustained other injuries. The declaration alleges that the two defendants conducted and carried on the business of hotel proprietors, and as such maintained and used the elevator for transporting the guests of the hotel, and were negligent in failing to provide a safe appliance for keeping the elevator at rest when stopped by the operator. The plaintiffs offered a lease for the hotel premises for five months, to both defendants, the demise, covering the date of the accident.

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

Opinion of the Court — Voobhees

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by Voobhees, J.

Passing any technical objections to the entry of this judgment, and considering the case upon its merits, it seems clear that the direction of the verdict was proper.

Liability was rested upon the fact that the two defendants were together carrying on the business and conducting the *550 hotel. To prove it, the lease was offered. The clerk of the hotel testified that he was employed by Mrs. Jagmetty, from whom he received most of his instructions, but that her husband had once in a while given him orders, and had paid, him:

The defendants each testified that the husband had no connection with the business, which was entirely the wife’s, as was the capital employed therein. There was no attempt to contradict this proof. The testimony conclusively 'showed that the hotel was run exclusively by the wife. The effect of the lease was not to the contrary.

Whatever may have been the consequence of the necessary joinder of husband and wife, in an action for a tort committed by the wife before the passage of the statutes relating to married women, since the passage of those acts, the husband is not liable for the torts of his wife,'growing out of the conduct by her, of her own business, or arising from the management by her of her own separate property. ' It was so held by the Supreme Court in Wolff & Co. v. Lozier, 39 Vroom 103 , and we approve the reasoning of that case on that point

The result is that the husband was not responsible for the injury received by the plaintiff, and the direction' of the verdict in the defendant’s favor was proper.

The judgment under review will be affirmed.

For affirmance — Ti-i-e Chief Justice, Garrison, Bergen, Vooritees, Minturn, Kalisci-i, -Bogert, Vredenburgh, Congdon, White, Trbaoy, JJ. 11.

For reversal — Swayze, Trencitard, Parker, Vroom. JJ. 4.

How later courts describe this case

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

1922: 11927: 11928: 11959: 119222026peak 1922 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wolf v. Keagy136 A. 520 (Del. Super. Ct. 1927)
  2. Curtis v. Ashworth142 S.E. 111 (Ga. 1928)
  3. Cwik v. Zylstra155 A.2d 277 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1959)
  4. Foster v. Ingle147 Tenn. 217 (1922)

Most recent

  1. Cwik v. Zylstra155 A.2d 277 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1959)
  2. Curtis v. Ashworth142 S.E. 111 (Ga. 1928)
  3. Wolf v. Keagy136 A. 520 (Del. Super. Ct. 1927)
  4. Foster v. Ingle147 Tenn. 217 (1922)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
D. Wolff & Co. v. Lozier, 52 A. 303 (N.J. 1902) 5

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