Case Name: NEW JERSEY IMPERIAL ROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1911-11-20
Citations: 82 N.J.L. 535
Docket Number: 
Parties: NEW JERSEY IMPERIAL ROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 535–535

Head Matter:
NEW JERSEY IMPERIAL ROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Submitted July 10, 1911
Decided November 20, 1911.
Alleged error in refusing application for a change of venue (assuming the change asked for was a matter of right)—Held, not reviewable by writ of error prior to final judgment.
On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 51 Vroom 640.
For the plaintiff in error, John Boyd Avis and David 0. Watkins.
For the defendant in error, Garrow & Kraft.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff in error seeks to bring under review an order made by the Supreme Court refusing defendant's application for a ciiange of venue. It is contended that the action is local in its nature, and that the change of venue asked for by the defendant was a matter of right. We are not called upon to pass upon this question, because it is manifest from the state of the case that the action has not been brought to trial, and that no final judgment has been rendered therein. In Defiance Fruit Co. v. Fox, 47 Vroom 482, the cause had proceeded to final judgment. Our review by writ of error is confined to final judgment. Gen. Stat., p. 1391, § 1; Chambers v. Philadelphia Pickling Co., 52 Vroom, 388; State v. Kelsey, post p. 542.
The writ of error should be dismissed.