Case ID: nj-eq_92/html/0372-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Grieein, Y. C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Public Service Railway Company v. Isadore Barnett.
    [Submitted January 5th, 1921.
    Decided February 9th, 1921.]
    The fact that one operating a jitney in a city took out one policy of insurance to cover liability in two municipalities, cannot be taken advantage of in a suit by a railway company for an injunction against the operator of the jitney to enjoin the use of the city’s streets by the jitney.
    On bill, &c.
    
      Mr. Franh Bergen, Mr. L. 0. Howard Gilmour, Mr. E. Ambler Armstrong and Mr. Robert H. McCarter, for the complainant.
    
      Mr. Merritt Lane, for the defendant.
   Grieein, Y. C.

The only difference between this case and Public Service Railway Co. v. Reinhardt, just decided, is that the defendant took out one polic3r of insurance of $5,000, covering the cities of Elizabeth and Newark. This was condemned in Fischer v. Politt, by the supreme court in an opinion filed by Mr. Justice Minturn, January 17th, 1921 (not yet reported), in which he affirmed, a conviction, under the Kates act, for operating where the bond filed included liability occurring in two municipalities. This, however, as indicated in the Reinhardt Case, complainant cannot take advantage of.

A decree will be advised dismissing the bill.'