History
  • No items yet
midpage
Ronkeroni v. Public Service Electric Co.
113 N.J.L. 405
| N.J. | 1934
|
Check Treatment

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 inSprouls 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, TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None. *Page 406

Case Details

Case Name: Ronkeroni v. Public Service Electric Co.
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Date Published: Sep 27, 1934
Citation: 113 N.J.L. 405
Court Abbreviation: N.J.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.