Den ex dem. Strugle v. Hayne

21 N.J.L. 245
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided October 15, 1847·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam

(Nevius, J. absente). The lessor of the plaintiff not being a party to the record, execution cannot go against him: when liable for costs it is upon the consent rule only. The only remedy of the defendant to obtain costs is by attachment, .which lies for the non-performance of this, as of all other rules. But no contempt can arise for the non-performanee of the rule, where no rule exists. The practice in this State on this point has been uniform, and is the same as the practice of the English Courts.

Rule refused.

Note. Acc. Anon. 3 Halst. 268; Goodright v. Badtitle, 2 W. Bl. 763; 2 Sellon, 111. Adams on Ejec. 273.

But the court will stay proceedings in subsequent ejectment on the same title, until such costs are paid. Smith v. Barnadiston, 2 W. Bl. 904.

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

Den ex dem. Strugle v. Hayne, 21 N.J.L. 245 (N.J. 1847).

21 N.J.L. 245 (Den ex dem. Strugle v. Hayne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.