Ronkeroni v. Public Service Electric Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Ronkeroni v. Public Service Electric Co.

174 A. 517, 113 N.J.L. 405, 1934 N.J. LEXIS 380

DecidedSeptember 27, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 174 A. 517 (Ronkeroni v. Public Service Electric Co.) 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

Ronkeroni v. Public Service Electric Co., 174 A. 517, 113 N.J.L. 405, 1934 N.J. LEXIS 380 (N.J. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

The case is submitted on briefs without oral argument. There are eight grounds of appeal: but the sole point made in the brief is that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for defendant. With the merits of that ruling we are not concerned, for the fundamental reason that no exception to-it was taken at the trial, and in this aspect the appeal has no legal basis on which to rest. Citation of authority on this point is superfluous: a number of cases are collected in our memorandum in Sprouls v. Quartier, 109 N. J. L. 191; 160 Atl. Rep. 657, cited by respondent. As intimated in Kargman v. Carlo, 85 N. J. L. 632; 90 Atl. Rep. 292, both court and opposing counsel are entitled to this notice of an intent to review the ruling.

No proper cause for reversal appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenciiaed, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Van Buskirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

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

Pee Curiam.

The case is submitted on briefs without oral argument. There are eight grounds of appeal: but the sole point made in the brief is that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for defendant. With the merits of that ruling we are not concerned, for the fundamental reason that no exception to-it was taken at the trial, and in this aspect the appeal has no legal basis on which to rest. Citation of authority on this point is superfluous: a number of cases are collected in our memorandum in Sprouls v. Quartier, 109 N. J. L. 191; 160 Atl. Rep. 657, cited by respondent. As intimated in Kargman v. Carlo, 85 N. J. L. 632; 90 Atl. Rep. 292, both court and opposing counsel are entitled to this notice of an intent to review the ruling.

No proper cause for reversal appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenciiaed, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Van Buskirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A. 517, 113 N.J.L. 405, 1934 N.J. LEXIS 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronkeroni-v-public-service-electric-co-nj-1934.