Katzin v. Jenny

• Decision Date: 27 November 1906
• Citation: 65 A. 192,74 N.J.L. 131
• Parties: KATZIN v. JENNY.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

65 A. 192

74 N.J.L. 131

KATZIN

v. JENNY.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 27, 1906.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from District Court of Newark.

Action by Jacob H. Katzin against Rebecca Jenny. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Motion to dismiss denied on conditions.

Argued June term, 1906, before HENDRICKSON, PITNEY, and TRENCHARD, JJ.

Samuel F. Leber, for appellant James M. Trimble, for appellee.

PITNEY, J. The briefs deal with this case as if it were an appeal from a district court taken pursuant to P. L. 1902, p. 565. There is a "state of the case" from which it may be gathered that in some court an action has been brought a trial by jury had, and a verdict rendered. What court entertained the action, and what judgment was rendered therein, are not made to appear.

The statute referred to declares in substance that, if either party in any action or proceeding in any district court established in any city of this state shall be dissatisfied with the determination or direction of such district court in matters of law, such party may appeal to the Supreme Court upon terms prescribed in the act Section 2 of the act declares that "such appeal shall be in the form of a case agreed upon by both parties or their attorneys," etc. It is implied, although not expressed in the act, that an appeal shall not be taken until after final judgment be rendered in the district court, and that the record of that judgment shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court together with the state of the case. The function of the state of the case is to set forth how the disputed legal questions arose and how they were disposed of in the court below. O'Donnell v. Weiler, 72 N. J. Law, 142, 145, 59 Atl. 1055. It is analogous to the common-law bill of exceptions. But such state of the case does not take the place of the record of the judgment that is under review. Such record should be transmitted, just as the judgment record is returned pursuant to writ of error where that form of review obtains, to the end that the court of review may impress its own judgment upon the record, by way of affirmance, reversal or modification. In Esler v. Camden & Suburban Ry. Co., 71 N. J. Law, 180, 182, 58 Atl. 113, this court called attention to the fact that in an appeal taken from a district court under the act of 1902 the failure to bring into this court the record of the judgment below warranted a dismissal of the appeal. In Boland v. Kaveny, 71 N. J. Law, 488. 489, 58 Atl....