Den ex dem. Rossell v. Inslee

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Den ex dem. Rossell v. Inslee

7 N.J.L. 347

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided February 15, 1800·Published

Opinion

Kinsey, O. J.

The third section of the act of June last extends not only to issues hereafter to be joined, but embraces in its very terms “ every issue which hath been or shall be joined,” and it expressly directs the trial to be had in the proper' county, unless the Supreme Court shall think proper to order a trial at bar. This power, however, [417]*417is expressly limited to actions in whicli “ the property or matter in dispute shall be of the value of three thousand dollars.” The language of the act is preciso and imperative, and we cannot allow a dispensation from its provisions in any case.

Rule refused.

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

Kinsey, O. J.

The third section of the act of June last extends not only to issues hereafter to be joined, but embraces in its very terms “ every issue which hath been or shall be joined,” and it expressly directs the trial to be had in the proper' county, unless the Supreme Court shall think proper to order a trial at bar. This power, however, [417]*417is expressly limited to actions in whicli “ the property or matter in dispute shall be of the value of three thousand dollars.” The language of the act is preciso and imperative, and we cannot allow a dispensation from its provisions in any case.

Rule refused.

Den ex dem. Rossell v. Inslee, 7 N.J.L. 347 (N.J. 1800).

Pincite

7 N.J.L. 347 (Den ex dem. Rossell v. Inslee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.