Den ex dem. Strugle v. Hayne
This text of 21 N.J.L. 245 (Den ex dem. Strugle v. Hayne) 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
(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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
21 N.J.L. 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/den-ex-dem-strugle-v-hayne-nj-1847.