Legal Opinion

Portley v. Hudson and Manhattan R.R. Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided May 4, 1934PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Pee Cuetam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons given in the opinion of Mr. Justice Perskie in the court below.

In that opinion it is said:

“However contrary may be the practice or the view in other jurisdictions on this subject, it is common knowledge that in our state the trial judge at the end of each case hands over the pleadings and all exhibits to the jury.”

This language would indicate that it is the usual and fixed practice of the trial judge to send out the pleadings to the jury, but whether or not the pleadings are sent out with the jury is a matter resting in…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hitchins Bros. v. Mayor of FrostburgCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1887
  2. Cavanaugh v. BuehlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
  3. Fleischmann v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1920

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Morris Shane, Paul Bankoff & Rose Flaxman, Trading as B. &F. Door Mfg. Co. v. Warner Mfg. Corp., a New Jersey CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1956
  2. Kovacs v. EverettNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1955
  3. Taylor v. Majestic Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1936
  4. Roth v. ProtosSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1938
  5. Glickfeld v. VenokurSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API