Columbia Brewing Co. v. Tumulty

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Columbia Brewing Co. v. Tumulty

96 A. 885, 88 N.J.L. 704, 1916 N.J. LEXIS 242

DecidedMarch 6, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A. 885 (Columbia Brewing Co. v. Tumulty) 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

Columbia Brewing Co. v. Tumulty, 96 A. 885, 88 N.J.L. 704, 1916 N.J. LEXIS 242 (N.J. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in its per curiam. We desire, however, to point [707]*707out that the Supreme Court fell into error in stating that the judgment in the replevin suit was between the same parties as those before the court in the case at bar, and that under the writ of replevin the officer seized a license certificate of the defendant, Tumulty, which was returned to him upon claim and bond. As a matter of fact, the parties to the replevin suit were the Columbia Brewing Company, plaintiff, the plaintiff and respondent in this case, and Paul Wisenfeld, defendant. Mr. Tumulty, the defendant and appellant in this action, entered into a bond, as surety, with the defendant in the replevin suit, as principal, to the Columbia Brewing Company, the plaintiff therein, and, the condition of the bond having been broken, the plaintiff in the replevin action, the respondent here, commenced this suit on the bond against the surety, the defendant and appellant.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Parker, Minturn, Kalisoh, White, Ter-HUNE, HePPENIIEIMER, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, JJ. 12.

For reversal—None.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in its per curiam. We desire, however, to point [707]*707out that the Supreme Court fell into error in stating that the judgment in the replevin suit was between the same parties as those before the court in the case at bar, and that under the writ of replevin the officer seized a license certificate of the defendant, Tumulty, which was returned to him upon claim and bond. As a matter of fact, the parties to the replevin suit were the Columbia Brewing Company, plaintiff, the plaintiff and respondent in this case, and Paul Wisenfeld, defendant. Mr. Tumulty, the defendant and appellant in this action, entered into a bond, as surety, with the defendant in the replevin suit, as principal, to the Columbia Brewing Company, the plaintiff therein, and, the condition of the bond having been broken, the plaintiff in the replevin action, the respondent here, commenced this suit on the bond against the surety, the defendant and appellant.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Parker, Minturn, Kalisoh, White, Ter-HUNE, HePPENIIEIMER, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, JJ. 12.

For reversal—None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A. 885, 88 N.J.L. 704, 1916 N.J. LEXIS 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbia-brewing-co-v-tumulty-nj-1916.