Fedorko v. City of Bayonne

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Fedorko v. City of Bayonne

152 A. 855, 9 N.J. Misc. 74, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 491

DecidedJanuary 15, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 152 A. 855 (Fedorko v. City of Bayonne) 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

Fedorko v. City of Bayonne, 152 A. 855, 9 N.J. Misc. 74, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 491 (N.J. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We find no state of the case in this matter, although'the rule was returnable on October 7th and the case was marked on briefs, which have been submitted.

There are no facts, nor is there any evidence of facts, before us. The moving affidavit has lost all evidential force (Peer v. Bloxham, 82 N. J. L. 288) and there is nothing before us by way of stipulation, or deposition, or any documentary evidence, to support the rule. Consequently it will be discharged, with costs.

It may be pertinent to add that the brief submitted for the prosecutor is not signed by a counselor-at-law, and hence should not be considered even if the state of the ease were before us. Leaver v. Kilmer, 54 Atl. Rep. 817; Duysters v. Crawford, 69 N. J. L. 229; Hazard v. Phoenix Co., 78 N. J. Eq. 568; Moore v. Bradley Beach, 87 N. J. L. 391, 395.

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

Per Curiam.

We find no state of the case in this matter, although'the rule was returnable on October 7th and the case was marked on briefs, which have been submitted.

There are no facts, nor is there any evidence of facts, before us. The moving affidavit has lost all evidential force (Peer v. Bloxham, 82 N. J. L. 288) and there is nothing before us by way of stipulation, or deposition, or any documentary evidence, to support the rule. Consequently it will be discharged, with costs.

It may be pertinent to add that the brief submitted for the prosecutor is not signed by a counselor-at-law, and hence should not be considered even if the state of the ease were before us. Leaver v. Kilmer, 54 Atl. Rep. 817; Duysters v. Crawford, 69 N. J. L. 229; Hazard v. Phoenix Co., 78 N. J. Eq. 568; Moore v. Bradley Beach, 87 N. J. L. 391, 395.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A. 855, 9 N.J. Misc. 74, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fedorko-v-city-of-bayonne-nj-1931.