Conrad v. Brocker

58 A. 1019, 70 N.J.L. 823, 1904 N.J. LEXIS 165
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided September 30, 1904·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The assignments of error are all directed at errors supposed to have been committed in the trial, and which can only be presented for review by bills of exceptions.

The printed book furnished the court shows no bill of ex-tions signed by the trial judge.

Under the settled practice of this court, the alleged errors cannot be considered. Davis v. Littel, 35 Vroom 595.

No error being shown, the judgment must be affirmed.

[824]*824For affirmance — The Chancellor, Dixon, Garrison, Fort, Pitney, Swayze, Bogert, Vredenburgi-i, Vroom, Green, Gray. 11. For reversal — Nono.

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

Conrad v. Brocker, 58 A. 1019, 70 N.J.L. 823, 1904 N.J. LEXIS 165 (N.J. 1904).

58 A. 1019 (Conrad v. Brocker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Raffio v. Raffio
88 A.2d 9 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1952)
Cohen v. Cohen
188 A. 244 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1936)
Wilson v. Wilson
181 A. 257 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1935)
Biddle v. Biddle
145 A. 639 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1929)
Banner v. Banner
171 S.W. 2 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1914)