Case Name: DAVID H. BURNETT AND MARY E. BURNETT, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS, v. JULIUS STOCKER, DEFENDANT; HELEN M. BURNETT, PLAINTIFF, v. JULIUS STOCKER, DEFENDANT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1924-03-12
Citations: 2 N.J. Misc. 222
Docket Number: 
Parties: DAVID H. BURNETT AND MARY E. BURNETT, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS, v. JULIUS STOCKER, DEFENDANT. HELEN M. BURNETT, PLAINTIFF, v. JULIUS STOCKER, DEFENDANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 222–222

Head Matter:
DAVID H. BURNETT AND MARY E. BURNETT, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS, v. JULIUS STOCKER, DEFENDANT. HELEN M. BURNETT, PLAINTIFF, v. JULIUS STOCKER, DEFENDANT.
Submitted December 3, 1923
Decided March 12, 1924.
New Trial — Trial Judge Refused to Set Aside Verdict — Application For Rule Denied.
On application fox rule to show cause.
Before Justices Trenchard and Campbell.
For the plaintiffs, Nathaniel C. Toms.
For the defendant, McDermott, Enright & Carpenter.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
. This is an application for a rule to show cause why verdicts should not be set aside and new trials granted.
The causes were tried together at Morris County Circuit and resulted in verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs.
The trial judge refused to allow to defendant rules to show cause why these verdicts should not be set aside.
We fail to find any reasonably debatable reason calling for the review of these verdicts, and the application is therefore denied, with costs.