Kruger v. Brown
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On rule to show cause why verdict should not be set aside. The defendant, as party of the first part, and the plaintiff’s intestate, as part} of the second part, entered into a written agreement, the material parts of which are as follows : “Whereas, the party of the second part had issued to him by the government of the U. S. of America, letters patent No. 530695 on December 11th, 1894, for an improvement in shingle planers.
Read the full summary
On rule to show cause why verdict should not be set aside. The defendant, as party of the first part, and the plaintiff’s intestate, as part} of the second part, entered into a written agreement, the material parts of which are as follows : “Whereas, the party of the second part had issued to him by the government of the U. S. of America, letters patent No. 530695 on December 11th, 1894, for an improvement in shingle planers. “Now, therefore, the party of the second part in consideration of one hundred and twenty-five ($125) dollars to be paid by the party of the first part at the end of each…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bergen, J.
The reasons upon which it is sought to have the rule made absolute are that the charge of the court was erroneoxrs in law, and that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. The complaint made against the charge relates to that part of it which submits to the jury the question whether a notice, alleged to have been given by the defendant to terminate the contract at the end of six months thereafter, was given according to the terms of the contract. The defendant’s testimony on this point shows that such a notice was prepared and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rosenthal v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
3Cited by3 opinions
- Szczesny v. VasquezNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1962
- Magazine Repeating Razor Co. v. WeissbardNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1939
- Epstein v. BrookSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1945