
    SARAH ABRAMSON ET AL., APPELLEES, v. W. T. GRANT COMPANY, APPELLANT.
    Submitted October 16, 1933
    Decided February 2, 1934.
    Before Justices Parker, Lloyd and Perskie.'
    :For the appellant, Maurice J. McKeown.
    
    For the appellees, Saul M. Mann.
    
   Per Curiam.

Passing technical objections relating to procedure, we conclude that the judgment should be affirmed on the merits.

.The female plaintiff was a customer in defendant’s store, and according to her testimony, slipped and fell on what she described as “a slippery floor.” The accident occurred on a Wednesday. This was the sum and substance of the evidence, for plaintiff on the matter of liability. There was a motion to nonsuit on the ground that the evidence failed to show any negligence, which motion was denied, and the defendant proceeded to -take testimony showing that the floor had been oiled the preceding Saturday night, and then on the following Monday treated with a compound calculated to absorb the oil and prevent the floor from being or remaining slippery. ■

If the defendant had rested on plaintiff’s case, there might well have, been a nonsuit. Abt v. Leeds Co., 109 N. J. L. 311; 162 Atl. Rep. 525. But the case as finally submitted showed a situation, as we view it, controlled by McGee v. Kraft, 110 N. J. L. 532; 16.6 Atl. Rep. 80, in which the Court of Errors and Appeals held that any error in the.refusal of a nonsuit was cured by the evidence later submitted.

The judgment will therefore be affirmed.  