Case Name: ELMER E. TARBURTON, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ALBERT C. HAGEMANN AND EDWARD POLE, PARTNERS, TRADING AS HAGEMANN & POLE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1936-10-20
Citations: 117 N.J.L. 294
Docket Number: 
Parties: ELMER E. TARBURTON, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ALBERT C. HAGEMANN AND EDWARD POLE, PARTNERS, TRADING AS HAGEMANN & POLE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 294–294

Head Matter:
ELMER E. TARBURTON, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ALBERT C. HAGEMANN AND EDWARD POLE, PARTNERS, TRADING AS HAGEMANN & POLE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Argued October 20, 1936
Decided October 20, 1936.
For the defendants-appellants, Ralph W. Wescott and Louis B. LeDuc.
For the plaintiff-respondent, French, Richards & Bradley (Floyd H. Bradley).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The proofs examined, it clearly appears that a factual question arose as to whether the plaintiff was an invitee at the time of his injuries. This factual question was submitted to the jury by the learned trial judge in a fair and well balanced charge. Timannus v. DeWitt, 109 N. J. L. 168.
The judgment under review is affirmed.
For affirmance — -The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Heher, Perskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Cole, JJ. 15.
For reversal — None.