Case Name: IRVING LEVINE ET AL., TRADING AS LEVINE AND ENGLANDER, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. ETTA GOLDSTEIN AND MORRIS GOLDSTEIN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1927-08-26
Citations: 5 N.J. Misc. 841
Docket Number: 
Parties: IRVING LEVINE ET AL., TRADING AS LEVINE AND ENGLANDER, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. ETTA GOLDSTEIN AND MORRIS GOLDSTEIN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 841–842

Head Matter:
IRVING LEVINE ET AL., TRADING AS LEVINE AND ENGLANDER, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. ETTA GOLDSTEIN AND MORRIS GOLDSTEIN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Submitted May 13, 1927
Decided August 26, 1927.
Before Justices Parker, Minturn and Campbell.
Eor the appellants, Feder & Binzler.
For the appellees, Victor Greenberg.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This was a suit upon a contract to secure and furnish a mortgage loan in which it is alleged that the appellants breached the contract by refusing to accept the loan procured.
The cause was tried by the judge of the District Court and a jury, and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellees for $467.
Points one, two and four are that the trial court charged that if the jury found in favor of appellees the verdict should be for $46 7.
The complaint against this is that the amount of damages was a question to be determined by the jury. There is nothing before us upon which we can pass upon this question other than the state of the case which sets forth that this was the amount of damage established.
Point three is that although the judge was present the clerk of the court received the verdict. We are unable to see anything irregular or harmful in this.
Point five is that the clerk refused to poll the jury. There is nothing before us showing that a request to poll was made.
Point six is there was no evidence of actual damage. This has 'already been disposed of under points one, two and four. The judgment under 'review is affirmed, with costs. '