Black v. Warner

155 A. 17, 9 N.J. Misc. 609, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 300
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedMay 25, 1931
StatusPublished

This text of 155 A. 17 (Black v. Warner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Black v. Warner, 155 A. 17, 9 N.J. Misc. 609, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 300 (N.J. 1931).

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs to recover rent alleged to be due under a tenancy between the plaintiffs as landlord and the defendant as tenant. The defendant answered and counter-claimed. The jury brought in a verdict for the defendant in the sum of $141.78, and the plaintiffs appeal from the judgment entered thereon.

The grounds of appeal set out four alleged errors. The first of these is that “testimony of breach o£ covenant and damages therefor, and for work and labor by defendant was admitted into evidence.” In order to review trial errors, the grounds of appeal must set out the judicial action complained of. The mere statement of a proposition of law or of fact is of no value as a ground of appeal. Grossman v. Lincoln Trust Co., 146 Atl. Rep. 376; 7 N. J. Adv. R. 743; Abbe v. Erie Railroad Co., 97 N. J. L. 212.

The second ground of appeal relates to the admission of a lease into evidence. This question, however, is not argued in the brief and is apparently abandoned.

The third ground is that “testimony was admitted into evidence of defense not stated in the answer, nor in the speci[610]*610fication of defenses, and that testimony was admitted to show defendant was not a tenant for a part of the period for which rent was claimed in the complaint.” This is an inadequate specification of error. The rule stated above with respect to the first ground of appeal applies here also.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges error in the court’s charge. This question is not presented in the brief and it seems that this also is abandoned.

The judgment below is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

A. Fishman Hat Company v. Rosen
146 A. 376 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 A. 17, 9 N.J. Misc. 609, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/black-v-warner-nj-1931.