English v. Horner

Supreme Court of New Jersey

English v. Horner

3 N.J.L. 816

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided May 15, 1811·Published

Opinion

By the Court.

Both objections are well taken. The action is founded on a sealed instrument, and ought to have been covenant, The breaches pught to have been assign, [597]*597that is, the state of demand [*] should have contained an allegation, that some one or more of the stipulations made by the defendant below, and contained in the agreement, had been broke by him, and how,

Prane, for plaintiff,

Judgment reversed,

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

By the Court.

Both objections are well taken. The action is founded on a sealed instrument, and ought to have been covenant, The breaches pught to have been assign, [597]*597that is, the state of demand [*] should have contained an allegation, that some one or more of the stipulations made by the defendant below, and contained in the agreement, had been broke by him, and how,

Prane, for plaintiff,

Judgment reversed,

English v. Horner, 3 N.J.L. 816 (N.J. 1811).

Pincite

3 N.J.L. 816 (English v. Horner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.