Case Name: BENNO SCHOPPER, APPELLANT, v. PAUL KRETSZSCHMAR AND FANNY KRETSZSCHMAR, RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1915-10-15
Citations: 88 N.J.L. 386
Docket Number: 
Parties: BENNO SCHOPPER, APPELLANT, v. PAUL KRETSZSCHMAR AND FANNY KRETSZSCHMAR, RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 88
Pages: 386–387

Head Matter:
BENNO SCHOPPER, APPELLANT, v. PAUL KRETSZSCHMAR AND FANNY KRETSZSCHMAR, RESPONDENTS.
Submitted July 6, 1915
Decided October 15, 1915.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which court the following per curiam was filed:
“The sole question is this: Was there evidence to support the finding of the trial judge that the note had been paid? We think there was. The defendant so testified. That the testimony might, or probably would, have led this court to a different conclusion, cannot avail the appellant. The rule is that if there is' testimony to> support the judgment, it must be affirmed. The appellant argues that the defendant’s testi mony must hare related to another note. But the difficulty is ihat defendant testified that there was but one note, and the trial judge saw fit to believe him.
“The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.”
For the appellant, Louis A. Cowley.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review should be affirmed, tor the reasons expressed in the per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Parker, Minturn, Kahsch, Black, Vre-DENBURGH, HePPENIIEIMER, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, JJ. 12.
For reversal—None.