Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of New-Jersey; From April Term 1790, to November Term 1795, Both Inclusive

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of New-Jersey; From April Term 1790, to November Term 1795, Both Inclusive

List price: US$27.27

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1886 edition. Excerpt: ... a chasm in the evidence, it not being proved that the bills exhibited before the justice were actually sealed; and Covenhoven v. The Slate. as the justice's return did not state them to be so, no ground was made out upon which the judgments could be reversed. Per Cur. We cannot make any intendment to overturn a judgment. It must clearly appear to us that there was error; and, in order to do this, the facts which constitute the ground of objection must be proved throughout. It may be that these parties have made two notes bearing the same date, and for the same sums, without seals, and sued upon them. We ought rather to intend this in support of the judgment. The judgments must be affirmed, with costs. Judgments affirmed. Lawrence, for plaintiff. H. Stockton, for defendant. 258 COVENHOVEN v. THE STATE, ON THE PROSECUTION OF VANTINE. 1. What is sufficient notice of taking an inquisition of forcible entry and detainer. 2. It is not necessary that the justice before whom an inquisition is taken, should sign it. 3. An inquisition of forcible entry and detainer is not vitiated by the dates being expressed in figures--this proceeding is, in some respects, a civil suit. Certiorari removing an inquisition of forcible entry and detainer. Leake, for the defendant, took three exceptions: 1st. That no notice was given by Vantine, the prosecutor, to Covenhoven, of the taking of the inquisition. As to this, it appeared that there were two intruders, Anderson and Covenhoven. A notice was served by Vantine on Anderson's wife, and a copy left; and the justice served a similar notice on Covenhoven. The notices were directed to both defendants; The State v. Frees. both appeared and made defence. He cited, on this exception, 2 Imp. C. B. 168, 9, 442. 2d. That the...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 188 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 10mm | 345g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • Miami Fl, United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236610334
  • 9781236610331