Baldwin v. O'Brian

1 N.J.L. 418
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 15, 1789·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

None of the objections which have been made go to the justice of the case or affect the equity of the [423]*423claim. The merits are clearly with the plaintiff’ and there is no question but that he may recover the entire amount of the verdict in another action, should it be adjudged that the pleadings are defective. “ judges ought” to use the language of Lord Mansfield “ to lean against every attempt to nonsuit a plaintiff upon objections which have no relation to the real merits: much more when the plaintiff is clearly entitled to recover upon the merits, and must recover in another action. It is unconscionable in a defendant to take advantage of the apices liligandi to turn a plaintiff round where his demand is just. Against such objections every possible presumption ought to be made which ingenuity can suggest.” 3 Burr, 12&3.

These are the principles which ought to govern courts in all cases of applications of this nature. But this case is still stronger here a verdict has passed between the parties, the questions of fact, which might have appeared questionable on the mere pleadings are settled and reduced to a certainty by the decision of a jury, and no attempt has been made to impugn the righteousness of their determination. In Goslin v. Wilcock

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

Baldwin v. O'Brian, 1 N.J.L. 418 (N.J. 1789).

1 N.J.L. 418 (Baldwin v. O'Brian) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Coe
136 F.2d 771 (D.C. Circuit, 1943)