Case Name: AMY E. RONKERONI, ADMINISTRATRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM, ETC., APPELLANT, v. PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC COMPANY, RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1934-09-27
Citations: 113 N.J.L. 405
Docket Number: 
Parties: AMY E. RONKERONI, ADMINISTRATRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM, ETC., APPELLANT, v. PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC COMPANY, RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 113
Pages: 405–405

Head Matter:
AMY E. RONKERONI, ADMINISTRATRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM, ETC., APPELLANT, v. PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC COMPANY, RESPONDENT.
Submitted May 26, 1934
—Decided September 27, 1934.
For the appellant, Alexander Simpson.
For the respondent, Henry H. Fryling and Oarl T. Freggens.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam.
The case is submitted on briefs without oral argument. There are eight grounds of appeal: but the sole point made in the brief is that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for defendant. With the merits of that ruling we are not concerned, for the fundamental reason that no exception to-it was taken at the trial, and in this aspect the appeal has no legal basis on which to rest. Citation of authority on this point is superfluous: a number of cases are collected in our memorandum in Sprouls v. Quartier, 109 N. J. L. 191; 160 Atl. Rep. 657, cited by respondent. As intimated in Kargman v. Carlo, 85 N. J. L. 632; 90 Atl. Rep. 292, both court and opposing counsel are entitled to this notice of an intent to review the ruling.
No proper cause for reversal appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenciiaed, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Van Buskirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 15.
For reversal — None.