General
TANNERS' PRODUCTS CO. v. NULTY
272 F. 898·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1921
Before BUFFINGTON and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges, and DICKINSON, District Judge.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
TANNERS’ PRODUCTS CO. v. NULTY.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
May 9, 1921.)
No. 2640.
Appeal and error &wkey;110 — Refusal of new trial cannot be reviewed on writ of error.
An order of the trial court refusing to grant a motion for a new trial cannot be reviewed on writ of error.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey; J. Warren Davis, Judge.
Action by Christopher Nulty, administrator, against the Tanners’ Products Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Runyon & Autenrieth, of Jersey City, N. J., for plaintiff in error.
John W. Palmer, of Newark, N. J. (Frank Bergen, of Newark, N. J., of counsel), for defendant in error.
Before BUFFINGTON and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges, and DICKINSON, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The record in this case shows the only assignment of error before us, based on a timely exception, involves the alleged error of the court below to grant a new trial. That the refusal of a new trial cannot be reviewed on writ of error is a principle so firmly fixed as to require no discussion or the citation of any authority.