Case Name: SYLVESTER M. SCOTT, APPELLANT v. HERMAN WUEST, RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1923-09-28
Citations: 98 N.J.L. 572
Docket Number: 
Parties: SYLVESTER M. SCOTT, APPELLANT v. HERMAN WUEST, RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 98
Pages: 572–573

Head Matter:
SYLVESTER M. SCOTT, APPELLANT v. HERMAN WUEST, RESPONDENT.
Submitted July 9, 1923
Decided September 28, 1923.
On appeal from the Supreme Court in which the following per curiam was filed:
“This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of the of the city of Perth Amboy in favor of the defendant rendered by the judge sitting without a jury.
“The appeal is probably not properly here for review, because it is asserted and not denied that there is not on file any specifications of causes for reversal as required by the rules. But we have examined the argument made by the appellant and find no merit in it, and we prefer to dispose of the case upon the merits.
“The action is in replevin and was brought by plaintiff against defendant to recover a horse which was in the possession of the defendant and which was claimed by the plaintiff as his property. The plaintiff testified that in September, 1917, he was the owner of the horse; that he took it to one Berg to keep; that Berg instituted a suit against him before a justice of the peace, and recovered a judgment, issued execution under it, and the constable levied upon the horse, advertised it for sale and sold it, and defendant claims by virtue of that sale.
“The plaintiff moved for judgment on the ground that the levy was endorsed on the execution and not made on a separate paper and annexed to the writ. This the trial judge rightly denied. We think it can make no difference that the levy was not on a separate piece of paper.
“The plaintiff further moved for judgment on the ground that the constable had returned the writ before making the sale. The judge rightly denied this motion because the contention was unfounded in fact. The record indicates that the levy was made on February 4th, 1918, and the execution returned on March 13th, 1918, showing a sale on some prior but unnamed date.
“The plaintiff further moved for judgment on the ground that the sale did not take place on the date to which it had been adjourned. The trial judge rightly denied this motion, there being no evidence to support the contention, and every presumption is in favor of the regularity of the proceeding. And, moreover, the state of the case indicates a regular continuance from wreek to week.
“The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.”
For the appellant. Emil Stremlau.
For the respondent, Silas V. Grimstead.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Parker, Bergen, Black, Katzenbach, White, Heppenn ether, Gardner, Van Buskirk, JJ. 10.
For reversal — None.