Tarburton v. Hagemann

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Tarburton v. Hagemann, 187 A. 749 (N.J. 1936)
117 N.J.L. 294; 1936 N.J. LEXIS 362
PER CURIAM.

Tarburton v. Hagemann

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The proofs examined, it clearly appears that a factual question arose as to whether the plaintiff was an invitee at the time of his injuries. This factual question was submitted to the jury by the learned trial judge in a fair and well balanced charge. Timannus v. DeWitt, 109 N. J. L. 168.

The judgment under review is affirmed.

For affirmance — -The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Heher, Perskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Cole, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

Reference

Full Case Name
Elmer E. Tarburton, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Albert C. Hagemann and Edward Pole, Partners, Trading as Hagemann & Pole, Defendants-Appellants
Status
Published