Herbert v. Curtis

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Herbert v. Curtis

25 A. 386, 55 N.J.L. 87, 26 Vroom 87, 1892 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 13

DecidedNovember 15, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A. 386 (Herbert v. Curtis) 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

Herbert v. Curtis, 25 A. 386, 55 N.J.L. 87, 26 Vroom 87, 1892 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 13 (N.J. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garrison, J.

The prosecutor seeks to reverse the judgment rendered against him in the Common Pleas upon a trial of an appeal from the court for the trial of small causes, upon the ground that he was a guarantor and not an original contractor in respect to the debt upon which the judgment is founded. This defence is not now open to him in this court. The Court of Common Pleas found as a fact that the prosecutor requested the services of the defendant as a physician and employed him to attend his father. Upon the contract thus arising a recovery was had. We cannot look into the testimony to see whether we would have come .to the same conclusion. The case has been tried, and the record before us discloses no error.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garrison, J.

The prosecutor seeks to reverse the judgment rendered against him in the Common Pleas upon a trial of an appeal from the court for the trial of small causes, upon the ground that he was a guarantor and not an original contractor in respect to the debt upon which the judgment is founded. This defence is not now open to him in this court. The Court of Common Pleas found as a fact that the prosecutor requested the services of the defendant as a physician and employed him to attend his father. Upon the contract thus arising a recovery was had. We cannot look into the testimony to see whether we would have come .to the same conclusion. The case has been tried, and the record before us discloses no error.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A. 386, 55 N.J.L. 87, 26 Vroom 87, 1892 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herbert-v-curtis-nj-1892.