Bozorth v. Cranmer

3 N.J.L. 430
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedSeptember 15, 1808
StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.J.L. 430 (Bozorth v. Cranmer) 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
Bozorth v. Cranmer, 3 N.J.L. 430 (N.J. 1808).

Opinion

OH CERTIORARI.

The action below was an action of trespass, brought on the following state of demand :

The plaintiff comes into court and pleads, that in the year of 1801, that Aaron Bozorth did wrongfully, and in the night season, take a cow from me without my knowledge, at that time, or consent, for which I prosecuted the said Bozorth, and obtained judgmont for, before John Furman, Esq., and afterwards the said Bozorth did prosecute me before Moses Kimpton, Esq., in Mount Holly, which appeared a malicious prosecution, by said Bozorth not filing no plea, nor attending the suit; and as the said Bozorth has had the judgment reversed by the supreme court, I, the said William Cranmer, do plead to this court for judgment for the loss of property and cash; that the above damages now will be proved to the court.

To the cow and cash I paid to ascertain the property, is $64.87, for which sum I pray judgment.

This cause tvas tried on the return day of the [326] summons, by a justice without a jury, in the absence of the defendant below, and the justice rendered judgment [*] for the plaintiff below, Cranmer, for $64.47, with costs. One objection to the proceedings below, was the insufficiency and uncertainty of the state of demand, and on this ground the court

Reversed the judgment.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 N.J.L. 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bozorth-v-cranmer-nj-1808.