Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1904

Conrad v. Brocker

Conrad v. Brocker
Supreme Court of New Jersey · Decided September 30, 1904 · Affirmance, Bogert, Dixon, Fort, Garrison, Gray, Green, Nono, Pitney, Reversal, Swayze, Vredenburgi, Vroom
70 N.J.L. 823; 58 A. 1019; 1904 N.J. LEXIS 165

Conrad v. Brocker

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The assignments of error are all directed at errors supposed to have been committed in the trial, and which can only be presented for review by bills of exceptions.

The printed book furnished the court shows no bill of ex-tions signed by the trial judge.

Under the settled practice of this court, the alleged errors cannot be considered. Davis v. Littel, 35 Vroom 595.

No error being shown, the judgment must be affirmed.

*824For affirmance — The Chancellor, Dixon, Garrison, Fort, Pitney, Swayze, Bogert, Vredenburgi-i, Vroom, Green, Gray. 11. For reversal — Nono.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.