Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1904

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

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Cohen v. Cohen (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1936)
Raffio v. Raffio (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1952)
Wilson v. Wilson (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1935)
Biddle v. Biddle (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1929)
Banner v. Banner (Mo. Ct. App. 1914)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

*824

For 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.