TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Willett v. Morse

THEODORE WILLETT, IN CERTIORARI v. GEORGE F. MORSE, PROSECUTOR

Willett v. Morse, 58 A. 72 (N.J. 1904)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 13, 1904
Judges
Fokt
Citations
58 A. 7271 N.J.L. 10442 Vroom 1041904 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 108
Headnotes
1. It is too late to object to a question after the answer has been given. Objections must be timely, and must be made to the question. 2. A party cannot take chances as to the answer and accept or reject it, as may appear advisable, after it is in.
Summary
On certiorari to the Common Pleas of Middlesex county.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Fokt

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Fokt, J.

Several of the reasons assigned in this case relate to questions of fact upon which the proof in the cause was conflicting, and the finding by the trial court must therefore be affirmed. This court will not inquire into- questions of fact further than to ascertain if there be evidence from which the conclusions of the court below can be reached. The weight of the proof, and1 the credibility of the witnesses, are for the trial court, and will not be considered upon appeal.

The legal questions raised in the record relate to the rulings of the court upon the admission of certain evidence.

The case was tried before the court without a jury, and the order of proof appears to have been somewhat disregarded; but an examination of the record makes it appear that the errors complained of were either harmless or simply irregularly admitted.

It is possible that the objection to the testimony of Mr. Willett relating to a certain conversation with Mr. Dey, who was alleged to be the agent of the defendant, was inadmissible, but no exception was taken to the testimony at, the time it was given, nor until after it was all in, when the defendant’s counsel said, “I object and take an exception to this line of examination.”

It is too late to malee an objection to the admission of testimony after it has all been given and is in the record. Objections must be timely, and must be made to the question. An objection made by counsel after several questions have been asked upon a certain subject, and after the evidence is all in the record, in which he states “I object and take an exception to this line of examination,” is of no force, and will not be considered.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1931: 11951: 11976: 119312026peak 1931 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Rechtschaffer360 A.2d 362 (N.J. 1976)
  2. HENSGEN BROS., INC. v. Grip80 A.2d 207 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)
  3. Hammond v. Wacker154 A. 735 (N.J. 1931)

Most recent

  1. State v. Rechtschaffer360 A.2d 362 (N.J. 1976)
  2. HENSGEN BROS., INC. v. Grip80 A.2d 207 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)
  3. Hammond v. Wacker154 A. 735 (N.J. 1931)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list