
    JOHN CORCIA, RESPONDENT, v. MAURO GIULIANO AND LUISA GIULIANO, APPELLANTS.
    Submitted December 9, 1912
    Decided March 3, 1913.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
    The plaintiff, a physician, obtained a judgment in the District Court of East Orange, against the defendants, who are husband and wife, for medical services rendered their daughter in the city of New York. From this judgment the defendants appeal to this court. From the state of the case it appears that counsel for defendants at the trial moved for a nonsuit on these grounds only — first, that the plaintiff had not introduced in evidence Ids license as a physician and surgeon in the city of New York; second, that the plaintiff had not deposited with -the clerk of Essex county a copy of any diploma of a legally chartered medical college or university in good standing, or some medical society having power by law to grant diplomas, which motion for nonsuit was denied, and we think properly so. The other questions argued m the appellants’ brief were not raised at the trial and therefore cannot be considered here. Judgment will be affirmed.
    For the respondent, J. Victor D’Aloia,.
    
    For the appellants, Anthony R. Finelli.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should he affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chibe Justice, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Bogert, Vreden-BURGIT, CONGDON, TREACY, JJ. 10.

For reversal — None.  