Cox v. Haines

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Cox v. Haines

3 N.J.L. 687

DecidedSeptember 15, 1810

StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.J.L. 687 (Cox v. Haines) 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

Cox v. Haines, 3 N.J.L. 687 (N.J. 1810).

Pincite

Opinion

Pennington, J.

— One of the reasons fox* the reversal of the judgment of the justice in this cause, is the same as in that of Sharpie. Hendrickson, just decided, as it respects the form of the venire. The opinion in that case must govern this.

There is, however, another difficulty in this cause. The certiorari is brought by William Cox alone, and the record brought up is a judgment against William Cox and Thomas Cowgill. Where judgment is against two defendants, one cannot bring a writ of error, without summons and severance: 2 Bac, 461, Carthew 7.

The opinion of the Court therefore is, that the certiorari be quashed. Certiorari quashed.

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

Pennington, J.

— One of the reasons fox* the reversal of the judgment of the justice in this cause, is the same as in that of Sharpie. Hendrickson, just decided, as it respects the form of the venire. The opinion in that case must govern this.

There is, however, another difficulty in this cause. The certiorari is brought by William Cox alone, and the record brought up is a judgment against William Cox and Thomas Cowgill. Where judgment is against two defendants, one cannot bring a writ of error, without summons and severance: 2 Bac, 461, Carthew 7.

The opinion of the Court therefore is, that the certiorari be quashed. Certiorari quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.J.L. 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-haines-nj-1810.