Case ID: njl_83/html/0635-01.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

WILLIAM SCHMID, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. RICHARD LAW, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
    Submitted March 25, 1912
    Decided June 20, 1912.
    On error to- the Supreme Court, in which the following opinion was filed:
    Garrison, J. The writ of certiorari in this case is in effect a writ of error brought to review errors of law in a judgment of a court proceeding otherwise than at common law. It partakes therefore of the nature of a writ of error in regard to matter not raised in the court below but sought to be raised for the first time in the reviewing court. This cannot be done upon error.
    There was no lack of generic jurisdiction (see Attorney-General v. Sooy Oyster Co., 49 Vroom 394), and the specific right to enter the judgment that was entered must he challenged in the court of first instance if it is to he made the basis of a reversal upon error.
    The matters argued here having been in effect waived in the court below cannot now be laid hold of to reverse a judgment that resulted from such waiver.
    The judgment of- the District Court of Camden is affirmed.
    For the plaintiff in error, Stackhouse & Kramer.
    
    For the defendant in error, Joseph Beck Tyler.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion delivered in the Supreme Court by Mr. Justice Garrison.

For affirmance — The Chief Justice, Swayze, Trench-, art), Parker, Bergen, ' Voorhbes, ' Minturn, Kalisch, Bogert, Vrbdenburgh, Vroom, Oongdon, White, Treacy, JJ. 14.

For reversal — JSTone.