Case ID: njl_71/html/0341-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHN F. CONRAD, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. EWALD BROEKER ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR.
    Argued March, 1904
    Decided September 30, 1904.
    On error to the Supreme Court.
    For the plaintiff in error, James C. Connolly.
    
    For the defendant in error, Patrick U. Cilhooly.
    
   Per Curiam.

The state of the case furnished to the court discloses no exceptions authenticated by the judge upon which error has been assigned. For this omission the court deems it impossible to disturb the judgment, and it must therefore be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Dixon, Garrison, Fort, Pitney, Swayze, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Green, Gray. 11.

For reversal — Hone.