1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 90 N.J.
  5. 90 N.J. Super. 356 (1966)
 

FARAGO v. SLUKE

90 N.J. Super. 356 (1966)

217 A.2d 630

EMILY J. FARAGO, ADMINISTRATRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM OF THE ESTATE OF JULIUS FARAGO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. JOHN PETER SLUKE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided March 4, 1966.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mr. Peter A. DeSarno argued the cause for appellant (Messrs. Seaman, Williams & Seaman, attorneys).

Mr. Frank Fink argued the cause for respondent (Mr. Albert M. Neiss, attorney).

Before Judges CONFORD, KILKENNY and LEONARD.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff's contention that there was prejudicial error in permitting defendant's witness Hendley to testify, notwithstanding his name was not furnished as a prospective witness in answers to interrogatories, does not withstand analysis of the record. Plaintiff knew the substance of the information sought by the interrogatories, insofar as persons connected with the tavern, like Hendley, were concerned. Moreover, the testimony adduced was in effect cumulative...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases