Hunt v. Langstroth

9 N.J.L. 224
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedSeptember 15, 1827
StatusPublished

This text of 9 N.J.L. 224 (Hunt v. Langstroth) 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
Hunt v. Langstroth, 9 N.J.L. 224 (N.J. 1827).

Opinion

By the Court.

The state of facts in this case is that the defendant ¡was brought before the justice upon a warrant, [281]*281and an adjournment took place. The defendant attended on the adjourned day; the plaintiff did not. The justice dismissed the action, and afterwards reinstated it. Without giving any opinion as to the right of the justice to reinstate the action, yet clearly he ought not to have done so until it had been shewn that notice of the application had been given to the defendant. The affidavit- taken before another justice was mere blank paper. It was voluntary, and perjury could not be assigned upon it.

The verbal notice mentioned by the defendant’s counsel, was not legal notice.

Judgment reversed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 N.J.L. 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-langstroth-nj-1827.