Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Frankowski v. Lawrence Motor Car Co.

Decided: January 10, 1935.

WILLIAM FRANKOWSKI, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
LAWRENCE MOTOR CAR COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



On appeal from the Union County Circuit Court.

For the plaintiff-respondent, Archie Josephson.

For the defendant-appellant, William Greenfield.

Wells

The opinion of the court was delivered by

WELLS, J. This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury in the Union County Circuit in favor of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-appellant for the sum of $450 and a verdict of no cause of action on the counter-claim filed by the defendant-appellant against the plaintiff-respondent.

The complaint contained four counts, the first three of which were predicated upon fraud and deceit and the fourth

upon a breach of warranty, committed by the defendant corporation through its agent, in the sale of an automobile to the plaintiff.

Inasmuch as the plaintiff-respondent concedes the evidence adduced by him did not prove sufficiently strong to establish fraud and deceit, and that if it did, the defendant corporation could not be held liable for the unauthorized fraud of its agent, we need only consider the case as made out by the plaintiff under the fourth count of his complaint.

This alleged that on or about the 3d day of January, 1931, defendant sold to the plaintiff a Cord sedan automobile for the sum of $2,720 and warranted the same to be a new 1931 model, whereas it was not a new 1931 model but a second-hand repainted car.

The plaintiff sued to recover the difference between the price paid for the car as represented and the actual value of the car received. The defendant counter-claimed for the balance due on the purchase price.

The appellant sets down ten grounds of appeal.

The first, second, ninth and tenth complain of errors as to the admission or rejection of evidence without specifying the specific evidence complained of. We said in Winfield v. Saunders, 105 N.J.L. 580, that assignments of error, as grounds of appeal must be specific and definitely point out a ground of error. Blanket grounds of appeal are inadequate ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.