Case ID: njl_106/html/0572-01.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

ESTHER LEWIS, RESPONDENT, v. M. & V. MOTOR COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND ANTHONY MANZO, APPELLANTS. FRANKLIN LEWIS, RESPONDENT, v. M. & V. MOTOR COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND ANTHONY MANZO, APPELLANTS.
    Submitted October 26, 1929
    Decided May 19, 1930.
    For the appellants, Donohue & O’Brien.
    
    For the respondents, Addison P. Bosenhrans.
    
   Per Curiam.

There is a mistake of fact in the per curiam of the Supreme-Court, which states that verdicts were awarded to the plaintiff Esther Lewis for personal injuries, and to her husband, Franklin Lewis, for loss of services and expense of curing his. wife. On the contrary the suits were for loss of the car and other personal property.

With the exception just mentioned the judgments under-review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Black, Campbell, Case, Bodine, Van Buskirk, Mc-Glennon, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.