Hughes v. Eisner

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Hughes v. Eisner

84 A.2d 626, 8 N.J. 228, 1951 N.J. LEXIS 177

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedNovember 26, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by43 cases

This text of 84 A.2d 626 (Hughes v. Eisner) 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

Hughes v. Eisner, 84 A.2d 626, 8 N.J. 228, 1951 N.J. LEXIS 177 (N.J. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

*229 Pee Ctjeiam.

The appellant, who was successful in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court in reversing a judgment of the Chancery Division of that court, appeals here under a claim of right. He voices dissatisfaction with the opinion of the Appellate Division. Appeals, however, are taken from judgments and not from opinions. He also argues strenuously that the denial of costs by the court below constitutes a violation of his constitutional rights. Under our rules costs are not a matter of right but are discretionary, Bule 1:4r-ll made applicable to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court by Buie 4:4-7. The sole basis advanced to establish a right to appeal in the instant case is the alleged existence of constitutional questions, Const., Art. VI, sec. V, par. 1 (a). After studying the brief of the appellant and after listening to his argument we perceive no constitutional questions. The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

For dismissal—Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Case, Hehee, Waoheneeld, Burling and Ackekson—6.

Opposed—Hone.

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

*229 Pee Ctjeiam.

The appellant, who was successful in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court in reversing a judgment of the Chancery Division of that court, appeals here under a claim of right. He voices dissatisfaction with the opinion of the Appellate Division. Appeals, however, are taken from judgments and not from opinions. He also argues strenuously that the denial of costs by the court below constitutes a violation of his constitutional rights. Under our rules costs are not a matter of right but are discretionary, Bule 1:4r-ll made applicable to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court by Buie 4:4-7. The sole basis advanced to establish a right to appeal in the instant case is the alleged existence of constitutional questions, Const., Art. VI, sec. V, par. 1 (a). After studying the brief of the appellant and after listening to his argument we perceive no constitutional questions. The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

For dismissal—Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Case, Hehee, Waoheneeld, Burling and Ackekson—6.

Opposed—Hone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.2d 626, 8 N.J. 228, 1951 N.J. LEXIS 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-eisner-nj-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack