In a suit arising by reason of a collision between an automobile owned and operated by the plaintiff and another owned and operated by a defendant, other defendants who were occupants of the car were alleged to have been engaged in a joint enterprise at the time of the collision, and were therefore responsible with the defendant driver of the car for his negligent operation. Two of the defendants moved to strike the complaint as to them as sham. Affidavits were used by both sides at the hearing upon the motion, and those on behalf of the plaintiff merely contained statements that the defendants were engaged in a joint enterprise, with no facts or circumstances being given which would be received at the trial and as to which the witness would be permitted to testify, while the affidavits of the moving defendants disclosed that they were mere occupants, or passengers, at the invitation of the driver, without any authority or control over the driver of the car, or any interest in the car or its control or management. Held, that the complaint was rightly struck by the Supreme Court commissioner as to the moving defendants because it was sham.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment under review herein will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Circuit Court Judge Lawrence, sitting as Supreme Court commissioner.
For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.