Burlington Island Amusement Co. v. Burlington Island Park Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Burlington Island Amusement Co. v. Burlington Island Park Co.

147 A. 862, 7 N.J. Misc. 1108, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 25

DecidedDecember 2, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A. 862 (Burlington Island Amusement Co. v. Burlington Island Park Co.) 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

Burlington Island Amusement Co. v. Burlington Island Park Co., 147 A. 862, 7 N.J. Misc. 1108, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 25 (N.J. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover damages for a breach of a lease of a tract of land at Burlington Island, Burlington county, New Jersey. A rule to show cause was allowed, why the venue should not be changed from Mercer county to Burlington county. The principal office in the charter of the plaintiff is alleged to be in Trenton, Mercer county. The venue is laid in Mercer county. Under the rules laid down in such cases as Keeley v. Borough of Belmar, 97 N. J. L. 98, there is no sufficient reason shown for changing the venue. Under such cases as Clement v. Stanger, 75 N. J. L. 287, the action is transitory and not local. ’ It is brought solely to recover damages for the breach of the lease. The rule to show cause is discharged, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover damages for a breach of a lease of a tract of land at Burlington Island, Burlington county, New Jersey. A rule to show cause was allowed, why the venue should not be changed from Mercer county to Burlington county. The principal office in the charter of the plaintiff is alleged to be in Trenton, Mercer county. The venue is laid in Mercer county. Under the rules laid down in such cases as Keeley v. Borough of Belmar, 97 N. J. L. 98, there is no sufficient reason shown for changing the venue. Under such cases as Clement v. Stanger, 75 N. J. L. 287, the action is transitory and not local. ’ It is brought solely to recover damages for the breach of the lease. The rule to show cause is discharged, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A. 862, 7 N.J. Misc. 1108, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burlington-island-amusement-co-v-burlington-island-park-co-nj-1929.