Opinion · Njlaw New Jersey

JOHNSON v. BOARD OF ELBALMERS, c., N.J., 107 N.J.L. 380 (1931)

JAMES LEWIS JOHNSON, APPELLANT, v. Bd. OF EMBALMERS & FUNERALDIRECTORS OF THE STATE OF N.J., RESPONDENT., 153 A. 374 (Ct. Err. & App. 1931)

Type: Opinion
Court: Njlaw New Jersey
Jurisdiction: Njlaw
Date: 1931-02-02
Topic: general

JOHNSON v. BOARD OF ELBALMERS, c., N.J., 107 N.J.L. 380 (1931) 153 A. 374 JAMES LEWIS JOHNSON, APPELLANT, v. THE BOARD OF EMBALMERS AND FUNERALDIRECTORS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT.Court of Errors and Appeals.Submitted May 29, 1930 — Decided February 2, 1931. On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose per curiam is printed in 8 N.J. Mis.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed JOHNSON v. BOARD OF ELBALMERS, c., N.J., 107 N.J.L. 380 (1931). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

JOHNSON v. BOARD OF ELBALMERS, c., N.J.,107 N.J.L. 380(1931)

153 A. 374

JAMES LEWIS JOHNSON, APPELLANT, v. THE BOARD OF EMBALMERS AND FUNERAL

DIRECTORS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT.

Court of Errors and Appeals.

Submitted May 29, 1930 —

Decided February 2, 1931.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whoseper curiamis printed in8 N.J. Mis. R. 177.

For the appellant,Robert Queen.

For the respondent,William A. Stevens, attorney-general, andRobert Peacock, assistant attorney-general.

PER CURIAM.

Everything else swept aside this appears to be an appeal from a conclusion of the Supreme Court not to allow a writPage 381ofcertiorarito review the proceedings and judgment of the respondent.

It is enough for us to say that the allowance of such a writ, in a matter of this character, is not a matter of right in the party seeking such review but is a matter lodged in the sound discretion of the Supreme Court and the exercise of that discretion by that court is not subject to review.

The appeal is dismissed.