Case Name: EDWARD F. DAVIS, RESPONDENT, v. MORRIS L. GRONER, APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1923-04-27
Citations: 98 N.J.L. 873
Docket Number: 
Parties: EDWARD F. DAVIS, RESPONDENT, v. MORRIS L. GRONER, APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 98
Pages: 873–878

Head Matter:
EDWARD F. DAVIS, RESPONDENT, v. MORRIS L. GRONER, APPELLANT.
Submitted March 26, 1923
Decided April 27, 1923.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
“This action was brought to recover compensation for personal injuries received by the plaintiff, who was run down by an automobile of the defendant, Groner, which was being driven by his chauffeur, one Kryor. Th,e present suit is against the employer and employe, and the trial resulted in a verdict against both of them. From the judgment entered on that verdict the defendant, Groner, appeals; and the only ground upon, which we are asked to reverse is that the trial court refused to charge the jury that they could not find a verdict against both defendants, but that, if they found for the plaintiff, they must find a single verdict against one defendant. The court not only refused to charge the request, but charged the law to he directly the contrary.
“We find no error in either the refusal to charge or in the actual instruction. In the ease of Whalen v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 73 N. J. L. 192, vre held that, ‘So far as this court is concerned, the rule is settled that where the injury is caused hv the negligence of an agent acting in the line of his employment the action may be joint against such agent and his principal, or may be separate against either.’ The course pursued by the trial court, which is made the subject of present complaint, was entirely justified by the decision just referred to and is controlling upon us.
“As this is the only point involved in the appeal, the judgment will he affirmed.”
For the appellant, Cov.lt & Woodruff.
For the respondent, Heine, Bostwiclc & Bradner.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.