Case Name: UNITED STATES TRANSFER ADVERTISING COMPANY, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. WILLIARD H. YOUNG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1910-06-13
Citations: 80 N.J.L. 151
Docket Number: 
Parties: UNITED STATES TRANSFER ADVERTISING COMPANY, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. WILLIARD H. YOUNG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 151–152

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES TRANSFER ADVERTISING COMPANY, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. WILLIARD H. YOUNG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.
Submitted March 18, 1910
Decided June 13, 1910.
A judgment of the District Court will not be reversed because of the admission of illegal testimony at the trial, when it appears that no objection -was made to its admission at the time it was offered and received.
On appeal from the District Court of. the city of Trenton.
Before Justices Tbjüíoiíakb and Mintubn.
For the appellant, W. Holt Apgar.
For the appellee, James & Malcolm G. Buchanan.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Trenchard, J.
This appeal brings up for review a judgment of the District Court of the city of Trenton upon the verdict of a jury in favor of the defendant below.
The only reason which 'plaintiff assigns for reversal is the admission of illegal testimony offered by the defendant. -
Assuming, without deciding, that the testimony was illegal, its admission is no ground for reversal because the state of the case discloses that no objection was made to it at the time it was offered and received. Oliphant v. Brearley, 25 Vroom 521; Willett v. Morse, 42 Id. 104.
We are not concerned with the action of the trial judge on the motion to strike out the testimony, made later in the trial, because such action is not assigned as a reason for reversal.
The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.