Pee Curiam.
The case is submitted on briefs without oral argument. There are eight grounds of appeal: but the sole point made in the brief is that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for defendant. With the merits of that ruling we are not concerned, for the fundamental reason that no exception to-it was taken at the trial, and in this aspect the appeal has no legal basis on which to rest. Citation of authority on this point is superfluous: a number of cases are collected in our memorandum in Sprouls v. Quartier, 109 N. J. L. 191; 160 Atl. Rep. 657, cited by respondent. As intimated in Kargman v. Carlo, 85 N. J. L. 632; 90 Atl. Rep. 292, both court and opposing counsel are entitled to this notice of an intent to review the ruling.
No proper cause for reversal appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenciiaed, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Van Buskirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 15.
For reversal — None.