From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lindner v. Michel

Court of Errors and Appeals
Oct 20, 1941
22 A.2d 340 (N.J. 1941)

Opinion

Submitted May 31, 1941 —

Decided October 20, 1941.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 125 N.J.L. 409.

For the appellant, Lawrence Wolfberg ( Andrew O. Wittreich, of counsel).

For the respondent, Edwards, Smith Dawson ( Raymond Dawson, of counsel).


The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, for the reasons set forth in its opinion. The Supreme Court said: "But there is an absence of testimony here that the owner caused the condition complained of or that the improper use of the sidewalk by the unloading of beer kegs was done with his knowledge and for his benefit." We do not believe that there was any evidence that the alleged defect in the sidewalk was caused by the unloading of beer kegs thereon, and in so far as the quoted language may support such an inference, we are in disagreement therewith.

For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PORTER, COLIE, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, THOMPSON, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Lindner v. Michel

Court of Errors and Appeals
Oct 20, 1941
22 A.2d 340 (N.J. 1941)
Case details for

Lindner v. Michel

Case Details

Full title:ELLEN LINDNER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. GEORGE MICHEL, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Oct 20, 1941

Citations

22 A.2d 340 (N.J. 1941)
22 A.2d 340

Citing Cases

Coll v. Bernstein

The evidence at best leaves the probability that the condition of the sidewalk was caused by the passage of…