Leaver v. Kilmer
Decision Date | 25 February 1903 |
Citation | 54 A. 817 |
Parties | LEAVER v. KILMER et al. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court. Monmouth County.
Action by John F. Leaver against Nelson H. Kilmer and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Defendants' brief excluded.
Argued November term, 1902, before GUMMERE, C. J., and VAN SYCKEL FORT, and PITNEY, JJ.
Wesley B. Stout, for plaintiffs in error.
S. A. Patterson, for defendant in error.
On the call of the list at the opening of the term, it was announced that this cause would be submitted upon briefs. Pursuant to this announcement, copies of the printed case and briefs were filed with the sergeant at arms. It appears, however, upon an inspection of the brief submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs in error, that it is presented by a member of the bar who has not as yet been licensed to practice as a counselor at law. This court will not receive such a brief. The cause stands, therefore, as if, notwithstanding the stipulation to submit it upon briefs under the rule, the plaintiff in error had entirely failed to comply with that stipulation.
The defendant in error is entitled to proceed as if no brief had been filed by his adversary.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman
...823.) The court properly struck the petition from the files. (Publicity Sect. v. Raye, 98 A. 300; Holzman v. Purdy, 162 N.Y.S. 65; Leaver v. Kilmer, supra; Duyster v. supra). The jurisdiction of this court is invoked by filing a petition in error and praecipe for summons. (Section 4422 Comp......
-
Appley v. Twp. Comm. of Twp. of Bernards
...only one, the brief would have been rejected, pursuant to well settled rules. Duysters v. Crawford, 69 N.J.L. 229, 54 A. 823; Leaver v. Kilmer, N.J.Sup., 54 A. 817, reversed on other grounds 71 N.J.L. 291, 59 A. 643; Moore v. Borough of Bradley Beach, 87 N.J.L. 391, 395, 94 A. 316; Gadek v.......
-
Fedorka v. City of Bayonne, 312.
...is not signed by a counselor at law, and hence should not be considered even if the state of the case were before us. Leaver v. Kilmer (N. J. Sup.) 54 A. 817; Duysters v. Crawford, 69 N. J. Law, 229, 54 A. 823; Hazard v. Phoenix Co., 78 N. J. Eq. 568, 80 A. 456; Moore v. Bradley Beach, 67 N......