Case Name: GEORGE CLARK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HUDSON AND MANHATTAN RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1916-11-20
Citations: 89 N.J.L. 708
Docket Number: 
Parties: GEORGE CLARK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HUDSON AND MANHATTAN RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 708–709

Head Matter:
GEORGE CLARK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HUDSON AND MANHATTAN RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Argued June 21, 1916
Decided November 20, 1916.
On appeal from the Supreme Court.
For the appellant, Alexander Simpson.
For the respondent Hudson and Manhattan Railroad Company, Collins & Corbin.
For the respondent Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Vredenburgh, Wall & Carey.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The trial court on. a second trial directed a verdict for defendants.
The only ground of appeal assigned is that the court directed a judgment of nonsuit. But the printed book before us shows that the court refused to nonsuit.
The argument of appellant is that the court erred in directing a verdict for defendants. But if this were properly before us as a ground of appeal, the answer is, that there was no exception taken to this action of the trial court; and without such exception, its ruling is not subject to review. Kargman v. Carlo, 85 N. J. L. 632.
The judgment is affirmed.
For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Trenohaed, Parker, Bergen, Mtnturn, 'Kaltscii, Black, White, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 13.
For reversal—None.