Case ID: njl_99/html/0512-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

EVA LEHR, RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM SATSKY, APPELLANT.
    Submitted December 10, 1923
    Decided March 3, 1924.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
    “This suit was brought to recover damages for injuries to household effects, including wearing apparel and furniture, delivered to defendant as a warehouseman. The goods were damaged by water. The allegation is negligence. The case was tried by the court without a jury, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff for $4.24.25. The appellant files nineteen specifications for which he is dissatisfied in point of law. The meritorious ones, however, turn upon the admission in evidence of the testimony of the plaintiff, Eva Lehr, and a witness, Sam Sugar. The latter, who repaired the furniture, testified as an expert as to the value of the furniture: his qualifications were admitted.. The plaintiff, Eva Lehr, testified that before her marriage she had been a saleswoman, she had sold dry goods; that at that time she was familiar with goods of the character concerning which she was testifying; that subsequent to her marriage she had been buying articles and that she had also recently been about and priced sncb articles; in this way she had become familiar with prices. Upon this testimony the trial court permitted Mrs. Lehr to testify concerning the value of the damaged articles before their damage, and also to express an opinion as to whether they had any value as damaged. A case in point is Leonard, v. Standard Aero Corp., 95 N. J. L. 235. This was not error. Binding no error in the record, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.”
    Bor the appellant, Harry Levin and Samuel Press.
    
    Bor the respondent, William .L. Greenhaum.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should bo affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chibe Justice, Trenchard, Mintuen, Kalisch, Campbell, Heppenheimer, Gardner, Yan Buskirk, Clare, J'J. 10.

For reversal — None.