Case Name: FRANK McDERMOTT, ASSIGNEE OF D. O. HAYNES & COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. DE MERIDOR COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1912-03-04
Citations: 82 N.J.L. 530
Docket Number: 
Parties: FRANK McDERMOTT, ASSIGNEE OF D. O. HAYNES & COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. DE MERIDOR COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 530–531

Head Matter:
FRANK McDERMOTT, ASSIGNEE OF D. O. HAYNES & COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. DE MERIDOR COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Submitted March 27, 1911
Decided March 4, 1912.
On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 51 Vroom 67.
For the plaintiff in error, George W. Flaache.
For the defendant in error, Theodore Rurode.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We agree with the views expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Swavze in the Supreme Court upon the questions at issue in this case, other than the question of the measure of damages. Eespecting the latter question, we find it unnecessary to express an opinion, because an examination of the record in the trial court shows that the point was not properly raised there. The rule of damages contended for by plaintiff in error was suggested only as a ground for the direction of a verdict in its favor. But the rule, if well founded, would furnish no ground for such a direction.
The judgment under review should be affirmed.
For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchari), Bergen, Voorttees, Minturn, Bogert, VredenBURGH, CONGDON, JJ. 9.
For reversal—None.