Simmons Pipe Bending Works v. Seymour
SIMMONS PIPE BENDING WORKS, IN ERROR v. JAMES M. SEYMOUR JR., IN ERROR
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Pee Curiam.
From a judgment in an action upon contract rendered by one of the District Courts of Newark, an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, pursuant to the act. Pamph. L. 1902, p. 565. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upon grounds expressed in the following per curiam:
“The state of the ease fails to show that any legal question was presented to the trial court. There is no objection to evidence, no request to find, and no exception to the actual finding. There is, therefore, no determination of the District Court in point of law or upon the admission or rejection of evidence for us to review. O'Donnell v. Weiler, 43 Vroom 142 .”
We concur in the view thus expressed, and the judgment of the Supreme Court should therefore be affirmed.
For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Dill, Congdon, JJ. 11.
For reversal—None.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.