Sprouls v. Quartier

160 A. 657, 109 N.J.L. 191, 1932 N.J. LEXIS 302
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedMay 16, 1932
StatusPublished

This text of 160 A. 657 (Sprouls v. Quartier) 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
Sprouls v. Quartier, 160 A. 657, 109 N.J.L. 191, 1932 N.J. LEXIS 302 (N.J. 1932).

Opinion

*192 Per Curiam.

The sole ground of appeal is the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a nonsuit. But to this ruling no exception was taken as appears from the record before us. Rulings of the trial court to which no exceptions are saved will not be reviewed here. Coxe v. Field, 13 N. J. L. 215; Ward v. Ward, 22 Id. 699; Pennsylvania Railroad v. Page, 41 Id. 183; Potts v. Evans, 58 Id. 384; O'Donnell v. Weiler, 72 Id. 142; Simmons Pipe Bending Works v. Seymour, 80 Id. 465; Carr v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad, 81 Id. 532; Kargman v. Carlo, 85 Id. 632; Miller v. Delaware River Transportation Co., Ibid. 700; Lams v. Fish, 86 Id. 321; Blanchard Bros. v. Beveridge, Ibid. 561; Daly v. Ewald, 88 Id. 707; Burt v. Brownstone Realty Co., 95 Id. 457; Byrne Co. v. Snead & Co., 98 Id. 256; Leiferant v. Progressive Agency, Ibid. 526; In re Board of Recreation Commissioners, 103 Id. 419; Punk v. Botany Worsted Mills, 105 Id. 648; Matisovsky v. Fidelity Phenix Insurance Co., 107 Id. 69.

It is apparent from the relatively few citations mentioned that the bar has been fully advised by a long course of decisions of this practice. A continual reiteration of the pertinent procedural principles for the last century seems to have had little effect. There is, however, no hardship in refusing to consider the merits of the controversy, since our examination of the record leads us to believe that there was sufficient evidence tending to show that the negligent operation of appellant Spencer’s car was the proximate cause of the accident to justify the submission of the issue to the jury.

The judgment below is therefore affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — The Chiee Justice, Trenohard, Parker, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Van Bus-kirk, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, Kerney, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
160 A. 657, 109 N.J.L. 191, 1932 N.J. LEXIS 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sprouls-v-quartier-nj-1932.