Case Name: EDWARD B. MC KEE AND BARBARA MC KEE, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. HARRIS-SEYBOLD COMPANY, DIVISION OF HARRIS-INTERTYPE CORP., SEYBOLD MACHINE CO., CARL W. HAGMAN, DEFENDANTS, MIEHLEGOSS-DEXTER, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1972-03-08
Citations: 118 N.J. Super. 480
Docket Number: 
Parties: EDWARD B. MC KEE AND BARBARA MC KEE, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. HARRIS-SEYBOLD COMPANY, DIVISION OF HARRIS-INTERTYPE CORP., SEYBOLD MACHINE CO., CARL W. HAGMAN, DEFENDANTS, MIEHLE-GOSS-DEXTER, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 480–481

Head Matter:
EDWARD B. MC KEE AND BARBARA MC KEE, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. HARRIS-SEYBOLD COMPANY, DIVISION OF HARRIS-INTERTYPE CORP., SEYBOLD MACHINE CO., CARL W. HAGMAN, DEFENDANTS, MIEHLE-GOSS-DEXTER, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued February 23, 1972
Decided March 8, 1972.
Before Judges Lewis, Halpern and Lora.
Mr. Norman S. Gostanm argued the cause for appellant, Miehle-Goss-Dexter, Inc.
Mr. Joseph J. MacDonald argued the cause for respondents, Edward B. McKee and Barbara McKee (Messrs. Harrison, Hartman and MacDonald, attorneys).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The trial judge's rulings from which defendant appeals not having been shown to be prejudicial and a review of the record disclosing neither prejudice nor error as alleged by appellant in the court's comments during trial, the judgment in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed.
Plaintiffs also urge that under the recently adopted R. 4:42-ll(b) (effective January 31, 1912) interest should be allowed on the amounts of the judgment from February o, 1969, the date of the institution of the action. We hold this rule does not apply retroactively to judgments entered prior to its effective date.