Dunkel v. Cramer Hill Ferry Co.

41 A. 676, 61 N.J.L. 208, 32 Vroom 208, 1897 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 1
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedNovember 15, 1897
StatusPublished

This text of 41 A. 676 (Dunkel v. Cramer Hill Ferry Co.) 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
Dunkel v. Cramer Hill Ferry Co., 41 A. 676, 61 N.J.L. 208, 32 Vroom 208, 1897 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 1 (N.J. 1897).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Such an application is at the discretion of the court and will only be granted when the case is very special, as where the law is mixed with the fact, or where the inquiry appears to] be of too much consequence for the sheriff to undertake. That large damages are claimed is not sufficient. White v. Hunt, 1 Halst. 330.

An example of the appropriate exercise of this discretionary. power is Jersey City v. Chase, 1 Vroom 233.

The affidavit submitted to us shows only the ordinary case of a judgment by default in an action for personal injury resulting from defendant’s negligence.

The application is denied.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 A. 676, 61 N.J.L. 208, 32 Vroom 208, 1897 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunkel-v-cramer-hill-ferry-co-nj-1897.