Daly v. Ewald

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Daly v. Ewald

96 A. 391, 88 N.J.L. 707, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 349

DecidedNovember 23, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A. 391 (Daly v. Ewald) 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

Daly v. Ewald, 96 A. 391, 88 N.J.L. 707, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 349 (N.J. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case was tried before Judge Campbell and a jury in the Hudson Circuit Court. The jury found for the plaintiff, whereupon the court entered an appropriate judgment against the defendant. The defendant has appealed, alleging as grounds therefor that the trial court refused to nonsuit the plaintiff or to direct a verdict for the defendant; and that certain illegal testimony was admitted. The record before us does not contain any exception or objection to adverse rulings by the trial judge, and, therefore, nothing is presented for review by this court. Kargman v. Carlo, 85 N. J. L. 632; Miller v. Delaware River Transportation Co., Id. 700; Lams v. Fish, 86 Id. 321.

The judgment under review must be affirmed.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Vredenburgh, Teri-iune, Heppeni-ieimer, Williams, Taylor, JJ. 15.

For reversal—-None.

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

Per Curiam.

This case was tried before Judge Campbell and a jury in the Hudson Circuit Court. The jury found for the plaintiff, whereupon the court entered an appropriate judgment against the defendant. The defendant has appealed, alleging as grounds therefor that the trial court refused to nonsuit the plaintiff or to direct a verdict for the defendant; and that certain illegal testimony was admitted. The record before us does not contain any exception or objection to adverse rulings by the trial judge, and, therefore, nothing is presented for review by this court. Kargman v. Carlo, 85 N. J. L. 632; Miller v. Delaware River Transportation Co., Id. 700; Lams v. Fish, 86 Id. 321.

The judgment under review must be affirmed.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Vredenburgh, Teri-iune, Heppeni-ieimer, Williams, Taylor, JJ. 15.

For reversal—-None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A. 391, 88 N.J.L. 707, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daly-v-ewald-nj-1915.