Case Name: ALBERT E. PARISH v. THE NEW DOMESTIC SEWING MACHINE COMPANY
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1901-02-25
Citations: 66 N.J.L. 159
Docket Number: 
Parties: ALBERT E. PARISH v. THE NEW DOMESTIC SEWING MACHINE COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 159–160

Head Matter:
ALBERT E. PARISH v. THE NEW DOMESTIC SEWING MACHINE COMPANY.
Submitted November 24, 1900
Decided February 25, 1901.
1. A oertiorm-i directed to the judge of a District Court is returned to this court with the required certification by such judge as to the record in his court, to which is appended a state of the case agreed to by the counsel of the respective parties for use in this court. Held, that such state of the case will not be considered, inasmuch as it is not part of the return and is not in accordance with the practice of this court.
2. The proper practice in such cases indicated.
On certiorari.
Before Justices Garrison and Garretson.
For the prosecutor, Arthur R. Denman.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Garrison, J.
This cause was presented upon the brief of the counsel for the prosecutor, whose argument is based upon the assumption that the court will accept a stipulation of counsel in lieu of the certification called for by the writ of certiorari.
The practice in this respect is indicated in the following cases, among others: Lane v. Ocean Grove, 29 Vroom 123; Monitor Lodge v. Goldy, Id. 119; Staten Chemical Co. v. Miller, 29 Atl. Rep. 316; Lloyd v. Richman, 28 Vroom 385.
In South Brunswick v. Cranbury, 23 Vroom 298, Mr. Justice Van Syckel details the practice in extenso.
It is observed in the case.in hand that an appeal had been taken to the Essex Circuit Court prior to the time when that feature of the District Court act was declared to be unconstitutional. Inasmuch as a state of the case was authorized by that act when an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court, it is probable that counsel for the prosecutor failed to note the difference between such statutory practice and the established practice in this court upon certiorari. Instead, therefore, of affirming the judgment that is brought up' by the judge's return, the ease will be held for thirty days, in order that a proper return may be perfected. If, at the expiration of that period, no such return has been laid before the justices who heard the cause, judgment below will be affirmed.