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.

Crager v. West Hoboken Transfer and Express Co.

Decided: March 26, 1945.

HENRIETTA CRAGER, ADMINISTRATRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF SIEMON CRAGER, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
WEST HOBOKEN TRANSFER AND EXPRESS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND FRED EGGERS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES



On appeal from the Hudson County Court of Common Pleas.

For the appellant, Felix Bigotto (Andrew O. Wittreich, of counsel).

For the appellees, Autenreith & Wortendyke (Reynier J. Wortendyke, of counsel).

Before Brogan, Chief Justice, and Justices Donges and Perskie.

Perskie

The opinion of the court was delivered by

PERSKIE, J. This cause arises under what is commonly known as the Death Act. R.S. 2:47-1, et seq. Henrietta Crager, appellant here and plaintiff below, administratrix

ad prosequendum and general administratrix of the estate of Siemon Crager, her deceased husband, appeals from a judgment of the Hudson County Court of Common Pleas of "no cause for action, based upon a jury verdict, in favor of West Hoboken Transfer and Express Company, owner, and Fred Eggers" driver of the truck, and upon whom liability was sought to be fastened for the death of Siemon Crager.

Appellant sets down seven grounds of appeal. They are "grouped and summarized" and argued as follows:

1. "Errors in the admission of evidence." (Grounds 1 to 5.)

2. "Error in the rejection of any hypothetical question as to witness qualified by defendant as an expert." (Ground 7.)

3. "Error in the court's refusal to strike out unconnected testimony." (Grounds 7 and 8.) Grounds 9 to 11 are abandoned.

The applicable law, statutory and case, is clear. We do not reverse a judgment for the errors set down unless, after the examination of the whole case, it appears that the "error injuriously affected the substantial rights" of the aggrieved party. R.S. 2:27-363. Kargman v. Carlo, 85 N.J.L. 632, 638; 90 A. 292; 218-220 Market St. Corp. v. Krich-Radisco, Inc., 124 N.J.L. 302, 304; 11 A.2d 109; De Freitas v. ...


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.