Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Datz v. Union Hill Hudson Corp.

New Jersey Supreme Court


Decided: May 17, 1935.

ALBERT DATZ, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
v.
UNION HILL HUDSON CORPORATION AND OCEAN ACCIDENT AND GUARANTEE CORPORATION, LIMITED, RESPONDENTS; OCEAN ACCIDENT AND GUARANTEE CORPORATION, LIMITED, PROSECUTOR-APPELLANT

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose per curiam opinion is printed in 12 N.J. Mis. R. 807.

For the appellant, John A. Hartpence and Charles J. Gormley.

For the respondent Albert Datz, Andrew O. Wittreich.

[115 NJL Page 247]

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of the Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation, Limited, prosecutor-appellant.

The action was for compensation for injuries received by the petitioner. The Common Pleas Court directed that the Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation, Limited, pay the award made by the deputy commissioner and the case went to the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.

We are of the opinion that the Supreme Court properly decided the case. The opinion of the Supreme Court is reported in 12 N.J. Mis. R. 807; 175 A. 182. Counsel for appellant argues four reasons for reversal. The Supreme Court in its opinion said: "The only question in this case is whether or not the voluntary surrender of the policy for cancellation by the assured, Union Hill Hudson Corporation, through its broker, was, in fact, a cancellation and termination of coverage as of November 28th, 1932." and again in its opinion said: "In view of the only question presented [and we have considered no other question], it seems clear that the determination and judgment brought up for review must be affirmed, with costs and it is so ordered." It, therefore, clearly appears that only one question was argued before the Supreme Court. That being so the other points urged for reversal are not properly before this court and therefore have not been considered.

The judgment under review is affirmed.

For affirmance -- THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS. HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, JJ. 12.

For reversal -- None.

19350517


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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