From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rainess v. Grant Finishing Co., Inc.

Court of Errors and Appeals
Jan 31, 1946
45 A.2d 678 (N.J. 1946)

Summary

admitting statement of intent as res gestae

Summary of this case from State v. Rose

Opinion

Submitted October 26, 1945 —

Decided January 31, 1946.

On appeal from the New Jersey Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 132 N.J.L. 422.

For the petitioner-appellant, Irving Edelstein ( Aaron Gordon, of counsel).

For the defendant-respondent, George E. Meredith.


We concur in the result reached by the Supreme Court and approve of its opinion except in so far as it holds that statements alleged to have been made by the decedent with respects to the purpose of his trip were hearsay and could not form the basis of a recovery. While hearsay evidence cannot form the basis of an award of compensation, Helminsky v. Ford Motor Co., 111 N.J.L. 369 , we are of the opinion that in the instant case decedent's statements and conversations made prior and in relation to his trip were properly part of the res gestae and therefore an exception to the hearsay evidence rule. The case of Hunter v. State, 40 Id. 495, is strongly in point. Decedent's statements were the natural incidents of his act in going south, which act was a part of the res gestae. They were concerned with preparations for it and were thus naturally connected with it. As was said in the Hunter case, "The res gestae may therefore be defined as those circumstances which are the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act, which are admissible when illustrative of such act. These incidents may be separated from the act by a lapse of time more or less appreciable. They may consist of speeches of any one concerned, whether participant or bystander; they may comprise things left undone as well as things done. Their sole distinguishing feature is that they should be the necessary incidents of the litigated act; necessary, in this sense, that they are part of the immediate preparations for, or emanations of such act, and are not produced by the calculated policy of the actors."

Even considering the conversations before alluded to, the result would not be changed.

The judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, PARKER, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, COLIE, OLIPHANT, WELLS, RAFFERTY, DILL, FREUND, McGEEHAN, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Rainess v. Grant Finishing Co., Inc.

Court of Errors and Appeals
Jan 31, 1946
45 A.2d 678 (N.J. 1946)

admitting statement of intent as res gestae

Summary of this case from State v. Rose

In Rainess v. Grant Finishing Co., Inc., 133 N.J.L. 611 (E. A. 1946), prior statements made as to purpose of proposed trip were held to be admissible.

Summary of this case from Riley v. Weigand
Case details for

Rainess v. Grant Finishing Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:FREDA RAINESS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. GRANT FINISHING CO., INC.…

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Jan 31, 1946

Citations

45 A.2d 678 (N.J. 1946)
45 A.2d 678

Citing Cases

State v. Rose

As res gestae, statements were admitted that expressed the declarant's state of mind, present bodily…

Robertson v. Hackensack Trust Co.

In such a status of the evidence, I should think that the exception to the principle that rules out hearsay…