Case Name: EMMA JACQUIN AND JOSEPH JACQUIN, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. MABEL C. APPLEGATE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1942-08-04
Citations: 128 N.J.L. 598
Docket Number: 
Parties: EMMA JACQUIN AND JOSEPH JACQUIN, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. MABEL C. APPLEGATE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 598–598

Head Matter:
EMMA JACQUIN AND JOSEPH JACQUIN, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. MABEL C. APPLEGATE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Submitted January 20, 1942 —
Decided August 4, 1942.
Before Brogan, Chief Justice, and Justices Case and Heher.
Eor the appellant, Cecil W. Rotzell.
Eor the respondents, Robert A. Lederer.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Heher, J.
This is an action in tort for negligence arising out of a collision of motor vehicles. Defendant interposed a counter-claim. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant on the complaint, and in favor of the plaintiff on the counter-claim. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Thereafter, on plaintiff's motion, the verdict was vacated and a new trial granted on the ground of the existence of newly-discovered evidence. Defendant thereupon appealed from the order so made; and it is affirmed that what is denominated "newly-discovered" evidence is not such in fact and in law, and the action thus taken is therefore a palpable abuse of discretion. The retrial has not been had.
The challenged order does not take the category of a final judgment, and it is therefore not appealable. An appeal lies only from a final judgment. R. S. 1937, 2:27-349. Vide Kople v. Zalon, 122 N. J. L. 422; Gaffney v. Illingsworth, 90 Id. 490; Benz v. Miller, 12 N. J. Mis. R. 630; Sonzogni v. Sansevere, 6 Id. 675; Cox v. Rosenvinge, 4 Id. 949.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed, with costs.