Clement v. Stanger
This text of 68 A. 97 (Clement v. Stanger) 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.
Opinion
[289]*289Tlie opinion of the court was delivered by
We think that the action is transitory. The ■action is not brought to recover possession of the farm, but solely for damages for personal derelictions of a covenantor. Such an action is transitory. Ward v. Holmes, 2 Halst. 171; Mehrhof v. Railroad Company, 22 Vroom 56.
The point decided in Hill v. Nelson, 41 Vroom 376, and followed in Doherty v. Cement Company, 43 Id. 315, is aside from the present question, but the discussion contained in the former opinion is instructive. 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
68 A. 97, 75 N.J.L. 287, 1907 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clement-v-stanger-nj-1907.