Case Name: ROSE R. TARNOW, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HUDSON AND MANHATTAN RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1939-01-13
Citations: 121 N.J.L. 522
Docket Number: 
Parties: ROSE R. TARNOW, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HUDSON AND MANHATTAN RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 522–522

Head Matter:
ROSE R. TARNOW, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HUDSON AND MANHATTAN RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Submitted October 28, 1938
Decided January 13, 1939.
For the plaintiff-respondent, William L. Greenbaum.
For the defendant-appellant, Collins & Corbin (Edward A. Markley and John F. Leonard).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Parker in the Supreme Court. The opinion at one point seems to suggest that the oral request to charge was made after counsel for defendant had concluded his summation whereas our interpretation of the transcript is that the entire incident with respect to the request was an interruption of plaintiff's closing argument; but that factual difference in nowise affects the soundness of either the disposition of the matter in the Supreme Court or the legal reasoning by which that disposition was reached.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Walker, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.