« PreviousContinue »
Zona v. Erie Railroad Co.
1057. This decision is controlling and requires a reversal of the judgment of our Supreme Court, which is ordered accordingly.
For reversal—THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, BERGEN, BLACK, HEPPENHEIMER, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, JJ. 9.
CHARLES ZONA, RESPONDENT, v. ERIE RAILROAD COM
Submitted July 7, 1919-Decided November 17, 1919.
On appeal from the Supreme Court.
For the respondent, Peter J. McGinnis.
For the appellant, George S. Hobart and Edward A. Markley.
The judgment is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion in Oppicci v. Erie Railroad Co., just decided.
For affirmance—THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE. SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, MIXTURN, WHITE, HEPPENHEIMER, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, GARDNER, ACKERSON, JJ. 12.
For reversal - None.
ABUTTING LANDOWNERS. awarded as to damages alone.
Philbrick v. Mundy,
embankment and wall along a 3. Whether a jury is ordered by
which the court to inspect or examine
245 2976, 88 31, 35), the judgment
rendered by the jury should,
TIONS (ASSESSMENTS, gally unsupportable in and by
the record under review, as the
questions presented to an appel-
what appears in the record
brought up from the court below,
notwithstanding a view was had
Garland v. Furst Store,
4. That this court in reviewing
power to pass upon the
sustained, so far as factual ques-
16 5. The Court of Errors and Ap-
peals has no power to review or
cuit Court a judgment is wrong or consider whether the amount
Appeals from a judgment of the limited to the property attached.
6. The general rule that service of
valid, extends to the issue and
execution of writs of attach-
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.
1. A claim for damages for failure
1. Communications between attor-
ney and client are protected
from disclosure only at the in-
stance of the client. State v.
Parker v. Anthony-Ham-2. A communication, made by a
client to an attorney, concerning
the drafting of a will for the
client, is a privileged communi-
cation which continues after the
death of the client, and the privi-
lege is not waived by the fact
that the attorney was one of the
subscribing witnesses to the will.
statutory and out of the course
non-resident and ab- was filed with the municipality,
precedent to the granting of his
then brought this suit against
the insurer upon the policy of
the District Court. where there act entitled “An act concerning
Banks and Trust Companies.
cities" (Pamph. L. 1916, p.
vidual endorsement below those
from the bank the sum it paid
Loan Ass'n v. West Side Trust
pass-books with the forged
vouchers returned by the bank
to the loan association without
protest or objection as to the
forgeries, constituted, in the cir-
cumstances present, an account
stated between the parties. Ib.
3. The holding by the Supreme
Court in Pratt v. Union Na-
tional Bank, 79 N. J. L. 117,
that a bank having paid a check
(with forged endorsement) can-
not charge the amount against
its depositor unless it shows a
right to do so on the doctrine of
estoppel or because of some neg-
ligence chargeable to the deposi-
BANKS AND TRUST COM-
4. Does Pamph. L. 1908, p. 428,
relating to forged checks apply
forged endorsements on
therewith, but is not the pro- From the Supreme Court. (Af-
From the Supreme Court,
Appellant. From the Hudson
County Circuit Court, 184
6. The State of New Jersey, De-
fendant in Error, v. Gennaro
Plaintiff in Error. From the
Oyer and Terminer,
fendant in Error, v. Frank La-
vieri and Michael DePalma,
353 Plaintiffs in Error. From the
Middlesex County Court of Oyer
Gregory. Plaintiff in Error.
From the Supreme Court,
V. Telegraphers' Benevolent As-
sociation, &c., Appellant. From
See NEGLIGENCE, 1, 2. 10. Grace Gillard, Respondent. v.
Manufacturers Insurance Com-
pany of Philadelphia, Pennsyl.
vania, Appellant. From the Su-
preme Court, 92 N. J. L. 141,
trix of the Estate of Frank
Rathbun, Deceased. Respondent,
13. Bruno Brancatella. Appellant.
From the Hudson County Cir-
152 12. Joseph Snuffin, Administrator,
&c., Respondent, v. William C.
&c., Respondent, v. William F. Railroads. From the Supreme