Smith v. Cruse

• Decision Date: 16 March 1925
• Docket Number: No. 125.,125.
• Citation: 128 A. 379
• Parties: SMITH v. CRUSE.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

128 A. 379

SMITH

v. CRUSE.

No. 125.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

March 16, 1925.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Fred J. Smith against Elvira M. Cruse. From judgment of Supreme Court affirming judgment for plaintiff (128 A. 377), defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Michael J. Tansey, of Newark, for appellant.

Julius H. Halprin, of Newark, for respondent.

WALKER, Ch. This was a case in the First district court of Newark, tried by the judge without a jury. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, and the latter appealed to the Supreme Court, where the judgment was affirmed. Appeal was then taken to this court.

In the Supreme Court's per curiam it is stated that the record before that tribunal showed no legal basis for review because it did not appear that there was any request on behalf of defendant for a finding of law or fact, or of law and fact, and exception taken thereto; hence there was no point presented which could be reviewed on appeal. Notwithstanding this, the Supreme Court, indulging the assumption that the points presented properly challenged the decision, went on and disposed of the meritorious questions raised by the appeal.

The grounds of appeal in the Supreme Court, seven in number, are repeated in this court with an additional one; (8) That the judgment of the Supreme Court should have been in favor of the appellant. This last ground is the only one properly assignable in this court, and under it all of the reasons in the Supreme Court residing in the state of the case were available on the argument. Burhans v. Paterson (N. J. Err. & App.) 123 A. 883.

It is not necessary for a party to request the court, in cases where a jury is waived, to make specific findings of law or fact, or law and fact. It is sufficient if he claims judgment in his favor upon testimony adduced upon the trial. And the court, sitting without a jury, cannot enter judgment for either party without finding in favor of that party. A judgment presupposes a finding of facts in favor of the successful party, even if such finding be not expressed in terms, and also presupposes that, in the opinion of the judge, that party is entitled to the judgment by the law arising upon the facts.

In the case at bar it does not appear that either side made any request for findings. But the judge of the district court, in the state of the case settled and signed by him, said, "I find the facts to be as follows," and then goes on and specifically finds the facts upon which he rests his judgment.

Now, the amendment to the Practice Act, P. L. 1916, p. 109, provides that when cases are submitted to the court to be heard without a jury, any error made by the court in giving final judgment shall be subject to change, modification, or reversal without the grounds of objection having been specifically submitted to the court. There is no requirement that the defeated party must have preferred a request for a finding of law or fact, or law and fact, and except to an adverse finding, in order to secure a review of the judgment; but appeal is given to him, as matter of right, although he did not submit the grounds of objection to the trial judge. But this refers only...