From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tarnow v. Hudson Manhattan R.R. Co.

Court of Errors and Appeals
Jan 13, 1939
3 A.2d 570 (N.J. 1939)

Opinion

Submitted October 28, 1938 —

Decided January 13, 1939.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 120 N.J.L. 505.

For the plaintiff-respondent, William L. Greenbaum.

For the defendant-appellant, Collins Corbin ( Edward A. Markley and John F. Leonard).


The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Parker in the Supreme Court. The opinion at one point seems to suggest that the oral request to charge was made after counsel for defendant had concluded his summation whereas our interpretation of the transcript is that the entire incident with respect to the request was an interruption of plaintiff's closing argument; but that factual difference in nowise affects the soundness of either the disposition of the matter in the Supreme Court or the legal reasoning by which that disposition was reached.

For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PORTER, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, WALKER, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Tarnow v. Hudson Manhattan R.R. Co.

Court of Errors and Appeals
Jan 13, 1939
3 A.2d 570 (N.J. 1939)
Case details for

Tarnow v. Hudson Manhattan R.R. Co.

Case Details

Full title:ROSE R. TARNOW, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HUDSON AND MANHATTAN RAILROAD…

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Jan 13, 1939

Citations

3 A.2d 570 (N.J. 1939)
3 A.2d 570

Citing Cases

Seipel v. Sevek

The original wrong which imperils life is not only a wrong insofar as the imperiled victim is concerned, but…

Saltsman v. Corazo

The rescue doctrine has received general recognition in New Jersey and "has long been a part of our State's…