Grand Lodge v. Ferretti

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Grand Lodge v. Ferretti

145 A. 630, 7 N.J. Misc. 394, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 316

DecidedApril 11, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 145 A. 630 (Grand Lodge v. Ferretti) 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

Grand Lodge v. Ferretti, 145 A. 630, 7 N.J. Misc. 394, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 316 (N.J. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is a fundamental rule of practice in error in civil causes (and the rule is based on reasons of the most meritorious character), that a ruling of the trial court claimed on appeal to be erroneous, and urged for a reversal of the judgment below, must have been excepted to below in order to be available on appeal. The reasons for that rule are explained in a long line of cases, of which late instances are the following: Kargman v. Carlo, 85 N. J. L. 632; Miller v. Transportation Co., Id. 700; Lams v. Fish, 86 Id. 321; Daly v. Ewald, 88 Id. 707; Chrisafides v. Motor Co., 90 Id. 313; Burt v. Brownstone Realty Co., 95 Id. 457; Leiferant v. Progressive Agency, 98 Id. 526.

We deal with this point at some length, because the only-ground of appeal argued is that “the trial court erroneously directed a verdict for the defendants.” Such a verdict was in fact directed, and after rather extended argument; but no exception to that direction was taken, and consequently it stands legally unchallenged, and the judgment must be affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

It is a fundamental rule of practice in error in civil causes (and the rule is based on reasons of the most meritorious character), that a ruling of the trial court claimed on appeal to be erroneous, and urged for a reversal of the judgment below, must have been excepted to below in order to be available on appeal. The reasons for that rule are explained in a long line of cases, of which late instances are the following: Kargman v. Carlo, 85 N. J. L. 632; Miller v. Transportation Co., Id. 700; Lams v. Fish, 86 Id. 321; Daly v. Ewald, 88 Id. 707; Chrisafides v. Motor Co., 90 Id. 313; Burt v. Brownstone Realty Co., 95 Id. 457; Leiferant v. Progressive Agency, 98 Id. 526.

We deal with this point at some length, because the only-ground of appeal argued is that “the trial court erroneously directed a verdict for the defendants.” Such a verdict was in fact directed, and after rather extended argument; but no exception to that direction was taken, and consequently it stands legally unchallenged, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A. 630, 7 N.J. Misc. 394, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grand-lodge-v-ferretti-nj-1929.