Almindie v. Board of Excise Commissioners

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Almindie v. Board of Excise Commissioners

63 A. 867, 73 N.J.L. 464, 44 Vroom 464, 1906 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 113

DecidedJune 11, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A. 867 (Almindie v. Board of Excise Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Almindie v. Board of Excise Commissioners, 63 A. 867, 73 N.J.L. 464, 44 Vroom 464, 1906 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 113 (N.J. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

[465]*465The opinion of the court was delivered by

Pitney, J.

We are asked to allow a writ of certiorari for the purpose of reviewing a complaint that has been made in writing, under oath, against the applicant, Almindie, charging him with violation of an ordinance of the board of excise commissioners of the city of Camden. Upon this complaint a warrant has been issued for Almindie’s arrest to answer the charge therein contained. Whether he has been taken into custody does not appear.

The application for certiorari in this case is premature, there being as yet no adjudication against the applicant. Where the function of a certiorari is the same as that of a writ of error, it will not, in ordinary cases, be issued until the conclusion of the proceedings that are to be reviewed. State, Elder, pros., v. District Medical Society, 6 Vroom 200; State, Hoxsey, pros., v. Paterson, 10 Id. 489, 493; Drake v. Plume, 15 Id. 362; Farrow v. Springer, 28 Id. 353; Unger v. Fanwood, 40 Id. 548.

The application will therefore be denied, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[465]*465The opinion of the court was delivered by

Pitney, J.

We are asked to allow a writ of certiorari for the purpose of reviewing a complaint that has been made in writing, under oath, against the applicant, Almindie, charging him with violation of an ordinance of the board of excise commissioners of the city of Camden. Upon this complaint a warrant has been issued for Almindie’s arrest to answer the charge therein contained. Whether he has been taken into custody does not appear.

The application for certiorari in this case is premature, there being as yet no adjudication against the applicant. Where the function of a certiorari is the same as that of a writ of error, it will not, in ordinary cases, be issued until the conclusion of the proceedings that are to be reviewed. State, Elder, pros., v. District Medical Society, 6 Vroom 200; State, Hoxsey, pros., v. Paterson, 10 Id. 489, 493; Drake v. Plume, 15 Id. 362; Farrow v. Springer, 28 Id. 353; Unger v. Fanwood, 40 Id. 548.

The application will therefore be denied, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A. 867, 73 N.J.L. 464, 44 Vroom 464, 1906 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/almindie-v-board-of-excise-commissioners-nj-1906.