Synnott v. Shaw

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Synnott v. Shaw

74 A. 526, 77 N.J.L. 803, 48 Vroom 803, 1909 N.J. LEXIS 232

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 17, 1909·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment brought up by this writ of error is affirmed, for the reason given for the affirmance of the judgment in the case of Synnott v. Froelich, in which the following memorandum was filed: “Per Curiam. The judgment brought up by this writ of error is sought to be reversed upon sundry assignments of trial errors.”

The case furnished the court discloses no exceptions sealed by the trial judge. There being nothing for us to review, the judgment must be affirmed. McLaughlin v. Davis, 35 Vroom 360.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garei-soN, Swayze, Reed, TRENCHaed, PaRker, BERGEN, Voor-iiees, MiNturN, Bogert, VeedeNburgh, Vroojí, Gray, Dill, J.J. 15.

For reversal—None.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment brought up by this writ of error is affirmed, for the reason given for the affirmance of the judgment in the case of Synnott v. Froelich, in which the following memorandum was filed: “Per Curiam. The judgment brought up by this writ of error is sought to be reversed upon sundry assignments of trial errors.”

The case furnished the court discloses no exceptions sealed by the trial judge. There being nothing for us to review, the judgment must be affirmed. McLaughlin v. Davis, 35 Vroom 360.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garei-soN, Swayze, Reed, TRENCHaed, PaRker, BERGEN, Voor-iiees, MiNturN, Bogert, VeedeNburgh, Vroojí, Gray, Dill, J.J. 15.

For reversal—None.

Synnott v. Shaw, 74 A. 526, 77 N.J.L. 803, 48 Vroom 803, 1909 N.J. LEXIS 232 (N.J. 1909).

Pincite

74 A. 526 (Synnott v. Shaw) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.