Hull v. Phillips

3 N.J.L. 367
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided February 15, 1808·Published

Opinion

Pennington, J.

J. — The action below, as well in the summons as in the justice’s docket, is an action on the case; and the state of demand is for a trespass. Under former adjudications, this must be considered as error; but it is not, in my mind, the principal one. The state of demand is uncertain; the language of the charge is “for trespassing on my premises, by letting down, or ordering, or suffering my fence, that went round my rye field, let down.” Besides, that these charges are in the disjunctive, for which reason, I think them objectionable, on the ground of uncertainty

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

Hull v. Phillips, 3 N.J.L. 367 (N.J. 1808).

3 N.J.L. 367 (Hull v. Phillips) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.