N.J. Imperial Rd. Co. v. Freeholders of Gloucester County
| Decision Date | 20 November 1911 |
| Citation | 81 A. 725,82 N.J.L. 535 |
| Parties | NEW JERSEY IMPERIAL ROAD CO. v. FREEHOLDERS OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to Supreme Court.
Action by the New Jersey Imperial Road Company against the Freeholders of Gloucester County. Judgment for plaintiff (80 N. J. Law, 640, 77 Atl. 1022), and defendant brings error. Dismissed.
John Boyd Avis and David O. Watkins, for plaintiff in error.
Carrow & Kraft, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error seeks to bring under review an order made by the Supreme Court refusing defendant's application for a change of venue. It is contended that the action is local in its nature, and that the change of venue asked for by the defendant was a matter of right. We are not called upon to pass upon this question, because it is manifest from the state of the case that the action has not been brought to trial and that no final judgment has been rendered therein. In Defiance Fruit Co. v. Fox, 76 N. J. Law, 482, 70 Atl. 460, the cause had proceeded to final judgment. Our review by writ of error is confined to final judgments. 2 Gen. St. p. 1391, § 1; Chambers v. Philadelphia Pickling Co., 79 Atl. 273; State v. Kelsey, 82 Atl. 13, decided by this court during the present term.
The writ of error should be dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Engel v. Gosper
...rule so providing. N.J. Imperial Road Co. v. County of Gloucester, 80 N.J.L. 640, 77 A. 1022 (Sup.Ct.1910), review declined, 82 N.J.L. 535, 81 A. 725 (E. & A. 1911); Hesselbrock v. Burlington County, 111 N.J.L. 177, 168 A. 45 The venue of an action is now governed by the rules of court. R.R......
- Ball v. Ball