From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pub. Serv. Ry. Co. v. Barnett

COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY
Feb 9, 1921
116 A. 793 (Ch. Div. 1921)

Opinion

02-09-1921

PUBLIC SERVICE RY. CO. v. BARNETT.

Frank Bergen, L. D. Howard Gilmour, E. Ambler Armstrong, and Robert H. McCarter, all of Newark, for complainant. Merritt Lane, of Newark, for defendant.


Bill by the Public Service Railway Company against Isidore Barnett. Bill dismissed.

See, also, 112 Atl. 850, 115 Atl. 747.

Frank Bergen, L. D. Howard Gilmour, E. Ambler Armstrong, and Robert H. McCarter, all of Newark, for complainant.

Merritt Lane, of Newark, for defendant.

GRIFFIN, V. C. The only difference between this case and Public Service Railway Co. v. Reinhardt (N. J. Ch.) 112 Atl. 850, just decided, is that the defendant took out one policy of insurance of $5,000 covering the cities of Elizabeth and Newark. This was condemned in Fischer v. Pollitt, 112 Atl. 305, by the Supreme Court in an opinion filed by Mr. Justice Minturn January 17, 1921, not yet [officially] reported, in which he affirmed a conviction, under the Kates Act (P. L. 1916, p. 283, § 2), for operating where the bond filed included liability occurring in two municipalities. This, however, as indicated in the Reinhardt Case, complainant cannot take advantage of.

A decree will be advised dismissing the bill.


Summaries of

Pub. Serv. Ry. Co. v. Barnett

COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY
Feb 9, 1921
116 A. 793 (Ch. Div. 1921)
Case details for

Pub. Serv. Ry. Co. v. Barnett

Case Details

Full title:PUBLIC SERVICE RY. CO. v. BARNETT.

Court:COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY

Date published: Feb 9, 1921

Citations

116 A. 793 (Ch. Div. 1921)

Citing Cases

J. I. Kislak, Inc. v. Muller

It is plain, from the conduct of the parties, that they intended that the contract in its entirety should run…