Legal Opinion
Conrad v. Brocker
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided September 30, 1904PublishedCited by 5 opinions
On error to the Supreme Court.
1Per 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.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Davis v. LittelSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1900
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cohen v. CohenNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1936
- Wilson v. WilsonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1935
- Banner v. BannerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Biddle v. BiddleNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1929
- Raffio v. RaffioNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952