French v. Higgins
| Decision Date | 25 February 1901 |
| Citation | 48 A. 1007,66 N.J.L 128 |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
| Parties | FRENCH v. HIGGINS. |
(Syllabus by the Court,)
Action by Thomas E. French, receiver, against Avalinda Higgins. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant moves to open judgment. Denied.
Argued November term, 1900, before VAN SYCKEL and FORT, JJ.
J. J. Crandall, for the motion.
Samuel H. Richards, opposed.
This is a motion to open a judgment entered on a postea in the above-entitled cause, and to hear the case here as if tried at bar, and to pronounce judgment thereon. This case was tried at the Camden circuit, before the justice of the supreme court holding that circuit, by consent; a Jury being waived. It appears that, in lieu of evidence, the case was submitted upon agreed facts. It was the duty of the judge to make a determination upon the agreed facts precisely as if the facts so agreed upon were the result of his own findings from the evidence of witnesses taken in open court before him. The only possible criticism on the postea returned is in the fact that the agreed facts are returned as a part of it while, as matter of fact they are no rightful part thereof. Evidence taken in a cause is no part of the postea, nor are the names of the witnesses sworn. The fact that a case is tried at the circuit on the record sent down on agreed facts does not make it a case tried at bar. It is still a supreme court issue, tried at circuit The finding upon the agreed facts by the justice takes the place of the verdict of the jury, and the judgment was rightly entered on the postea. Upon the justice reporting his findings, either of two courses is open for the review thereof: (1) Apply within six days for a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted, which, if allowed, will be heard by the supreme court, as in the case of a verdict; or (2) take a writ of error to the court of errors to review the errors of law upon the exceptions taken at the trial, or to the conclusions of law of the justice, which have been allowed and sealed. Bridge Co. v. Geisse, 38 N. J. Law, 39; Mills v. Mott, 59 N. J. Law, 15, 34 Atl. 947. The application is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallenstein v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
...13) of $990 plus interest and costs. Postea may be prepared in accordance with the practice outlined in French, Receiver, v. Higgins, Sup.Ct.1901, 66 N.J.L. 128, 48 A. 1007, and Supreme Court Rule 113, N.J.S.A. tit. 2, and to contain the rulings upon letters referred to in pargraph 10 of th......
- State v. Thomas