Case Name: BENJAMIN VOLTZOW, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, WILLIAM VOLTZOW, AND WILLIAM VOLTZOW, PLAINTIFFS, v. PIETRO COFRANCESCO, DEFENDANT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1923-02-20
Citations: 1 N.J. Misc. 13
Docket Number: 
Parties: BENJAMIN VOLTZOW, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, WILLIAM VOLTZOW, AND WILLIAM VOLTZOW, PLAINTIFFS, v. PIETRO COFRANCESCO, DEFENDANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 13–14

Head Matter:
BENJAMIN VOLTZOW, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, WILLIAM VOLTZOW, AND WILLIAM VOLTZOW, PLAINTIFFS, v. PIETRO COFRANCESCO, DEFENDANT.
Decided February 20, 1923.
For the plaintiffs, Weinberger & Weinberger.
For the defendants, Wayne Dumont.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is a second rule to show cause. On the previous rule the verdict was set aside. If this present verdict is a concurring one we are required to dismiss the rule, following Brown v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 69 N. J. L. 474. It is clearly concurring on the question of liability. It is equally clear that it is not concurring on the question of the amount of that liability; the jury- in the later trial awarded much higher damages than in the former.
We think, however, that under -the circumstances, two juries having found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for large amounts, we ought not to interfere since the amount of the damages is properly a jury question.
Let -the rule be discharged, with costs.