Case Name: JENNIE ZUSI AND FRANK ZUSI, PLAINTIFFS, v. FREDERICK MURWEIS, MAUD LOVETT AND LESTER C. LOVETT, DEFENDANTS; MILLIE HESS AND SAMUEL HESS, PLAINTIFFS, v. LESTER C. LOVETT, DEFENDANT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1929-10-16
Citations: 7 N.J. Misc. 901
Docket Number: 
Parties: JENNIE ZUSI AND FRANK ZUSI, PLAINTIFFS, v. FREDERICK MURWEIS, MAUD LOVETT AND LESTER C. LOVETT, DEFENDANTS. MILLIE HESS AND SAMUEL HESS, PLAINTIFFS, v. LESTER C. LOVETT, DEFENDANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 901–902

Head Matter:
JENNIE ZUSI AND FRANK ZUSI, PLAINTIFFS, v. FREDERICK MURWEIS, MAUD LOVETT AND LESTER C. LOVETT, DEFENDANTS. MILLIE HESS AND SAMUEL HESS, PLAINTIFFS, v. LESTER C. LOVETT, DEFENDANT.
Decided October 16, 1929.
Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justices Parker and Bodike.
For the defendant, George L. Burton.
For the plaintiffs, Quinn, Parsons & Doremus.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiffs recovered a verdict against the defendants.
Our examination of the testimony adduced at the trial leads us to the conclusion that the negligence of the defendant Maud Lovett was clearly established, and that the injury complained of was not contributed to in any way by the negligence of the driver of the car in which the plaintiffs were riding.
There was testimony that the car which the defendant Maud Lovett was driving was provided by her husband, Lester C. Lovett, and that she had his permission to drive it when she wanted to. This evidence raised a jury question (Missell v. Hayes, 86 N. J. L. 348), which was left to the jury in an admirable charge.
Our examination of the record leads us to the conclusion that the jury's finding on the question of agency was supported by evidence, and that the refusal of the trial judge to grant a nonsuit, or direct a verdict for the defendant Lester C. Lovett was in all respects proper.
The rule will be discharged.