Case Name: MARY COSTELLO AND PETER COSTELLO, RESPONDENTS, v. DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF RAILROADS, APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1921-02-28
Citations: 95 N.J.L. 538
Docket Number: 
Parties: MARY COSTELLO AND PETER COSTELLO, RESPONDENTS, v. DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF RAILROADS, APPELLANT.
Judges: For a-fprmance — The CHANCELLOR, Swayze, Trestchard, PARKER, BeRCtEN, Kalisctt, Katzbnbact-t, White, Heppen-HBIMER, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, GARDNER, ÁCKERSON, JJ. 13.
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 538–539

Head Matter:
MARY COSTELLO AND PETER COSTELLO, RESPONDENTS, v. DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF RAILROADS, APPELLANT.
Submitted December 6, 1920
Decided February 28, 1921.
On appeal from tire Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
“On the night of February 22d, 1918, a married woman, the plaintiff, was injured while using the stairway at the Summit aveuno station oí tlie Hudson and Manhattan Railway Company, due, as she alleges, to an accumulation of ice upon the stairway, which the defendant had negligently permitted to remain there after the expiration of a reasonable time to chingo it with notice of the danger incident to the ue of the way in that condition.
“This was the second trial of the case, and again the verdict was for the plaintiff. There was evidence of these facts before the jury and verdict predicated thereon is sustainable. Mw-phy v. Mew- Jersey Street Railway,. 81 N. J. L. 706; Schnatterer v. Bamberger, Id. 558.
“The facts were controverted and that status presented a jury question. The brief of defendant presents the controverted facts for our consideration, but, as this is not a rule to show cause, we are not concerned with the weight of the testimony, or the credibility of the witnesses.
“The only questions argued are the refusals to order a non-suit and to direct a verdict, and since there was a dispute upon the essential facts of the case, we think the trial court was correct in its rulings in both respects.
“The judgment will be affirmed.”
For the appellant, Alexander Simpson.
For the respondents, George S. Hobart and Edward A. MarMey (Collins & Corbin on the brief).

Opinion:
PBR CüRTAM.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For a-fprmance — The CHANCELLOR, Swayze, Trestchard, PARKER, BeRCtEN, Kalisctt, Katzbnbact-t, White, Heppen-HBIMER, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, GARDNER, ÁCKERSON, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.