Lowenstein v. Lohman, 35.
| Citation | 160 A. 817 |
| Decision Date | 31 May 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 35.,35. |
| Parties | LOWENSTEIN v. LOHMAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
LOWENSTEIN
v.
LOHMAN.
No. 35.
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
May 31, 1932.
Syllabus by the Court.+++
To reverse a common-law judgment for trial error, such error must be manifested to the court of review by a bill of exceptions or by the proper statutory substitute, if any, for such bill of exceptions.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Essex County.
Action by Milton Lowenstein against John N. Lohman. Judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued January term, 1932, before GUMMERE, C. J., and PARKER and CASE, JJ.
Saul & Joseph E. Cohn, of Newark, for appellant.
Osborne, Cornish & Scheck, of Newark, for respondent.
PARKER, J.
We are unable to perceive any error in the case as laid before us.
The original defendants were John N. Lohman and Pierre Lohman. The complaint— probably intended as in the alternative, though it-does not so state—is in two counts. The substance of the first count is that defendant John was a customer of H. G. Einstein & Co., stockbrokers, and through Pierre as his agent ordered Einstein & Co. to purchase certain stock for him, which they did, he refused to take it, and they resold at a loss.
The second count is the same, except that it is directed against Pierre and charges him as principal. Plaintiff is assignee (probably formal) of the Einstein claim.
Pierre Lohman defaulted in pleading, and judgment interlocutory entered against him. There has been no ascertainment of the amount of damages, and hence no final judgment as against Pierre.
John filed his answer, and, after some interlocutory matters not now material, trial was moved against him, and resulted in a nonsuit, and in this appeal. The sole ground of appeal is:
"Because the trial court erred in directing a nonsuit in favor of the defendant John N. Lohman against the plaintiff in that.
"(a) The trial court held that the plaintiff had elected to hold the defendant, Pierre Lohman, only; and.
"(b) The trial court ruled that the interlocutory judgment against Pierre Lohman was an election on the part of the plaintiff not to hold the defendant, John N. Lohman."
The case will be searched in vain for such rulings. The transcript of proceedings at the trial is very short, and is here reproduced in full, omitting title, date, etc.:
"Before Hon. William A. Smith, J., and a jury.
"For plaintiff appear Saul & Joseph E. Cohn (by Irwin R. Heller).
"For defendant appear Osborne, Cornish & Scheck (by Emanuel P. Scheck).
"Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meserve v. Traverso, 50.
...within the holding of such cases as Sentliffer v. Jacobs, 84 N.J.L. 128, 130, 86 A. 929, and Lowenstein v. Lohman, 109 N.J.L. 215, 217, 160 A. 817. We do not, however, find it necessary further to labor the point for, assuming but not deciding that the question is properly before us, we are......
-
Henry v. Haussling
......J. Law, 683, 87 A. 472; Davenport v. Holden, 95 N. J. Law, 197, 112 A. 418; Carey v. Gray, 98 N. J. Law, 217, 119 A. 176; Lowenstein v. Lohman, 109 N. J. Law, 215, 160 A. 817. In this last case we refused to consider the alleged. 176 A. 566. error in nonsuiting simply because there ......
-
Abraham v. Wilson & Co, 50.
......Carlo, 85 N.J.L. 632, 635, 636, 90 A. 292; Lowenstein v. Lohman, 109 N.J.L. 215, 160 A. 817) to show any judicial action whatever. The second ground of appeal is that the trial court ......
-
State v. Mason
......State v. Hart, 90 N. J. Law, 261,101 A. 278, L. R. A. 1917P, 985; State v. Fearce, 113 N. J. Law, 155, 172 A. 575; Lowenstein v. Lohman, 109 N. J. Law, 215, 160 A. 817; Lyon v. Fabricant, 113 N. J. Law, 62, 172 A. 567; Donnelly v. State, 26 N. J. Law, 463, 511; State v. ......