Case Name: ESTHER LEWIS, RESPONDENT, v. M. & V. MOTOR COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND ANTHONY MANZO, APPELLANTS; FRANKLIN LEWIS, RESPONDENT, v. M. & V. MOTOR COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND ANTHONY MANZO, APPELLANTS
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1930-05-19
Citations: 106 N.J.L. 572
Docket Number: 
Parties: ESTHER LEWIS, RESPONDENT, v. M. & V. MOTOR COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND ANTHONY MANZO, APPELLANTS. FRANKLIN LEWIS, RESPONDENT, v. M. & V. MOTOR COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND ANTHONY MANZO, APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 106
Pages: 572–572

Head Matter:
ESTHER LEWIS, RESPONDENT, v. M. & V. MOTOR COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND ANTHONY MANZO, APPELLANTS. FRANKLIN LEWIS, RESPONDENT, v. M. & V. MOTOR COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND ANTHONY MANZO, APPELLANTS.
Submitted October 26, 1929
Decided May 19, 1930.
For the appellants, Donohue & O’Brien.
For the respondents, Addison P. Bosenhrans.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
There is a mistake of fact in the per curiam of the Supreme-Court, which states that verdicts were awarded to the plaintiff Esther Lewis for personal injuries, and to her husband, Franklin Lewis, for loss of services and expense of curing his. wife. On the contrary the suits were for loss of the car and other personal property.
With the exception just mentioned the judgments under-review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Black, Campbell, Case, Bodine, Van Buskirk, Mc-Glennon, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.