James v. Dickson

Supreme Court of New Jersey

James v. Dickson

1 N.J.L. 297

DecidedNovember 15, 1794

StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.J.L. 297 (James v. Dickson) 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

James v. Dickson, 1 N.J.L. 297 (N.J. 1794).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Cxjr.

We cannot make any intendment to overturn a judgment. It must clearly appear to us that there was error; and, in order to do this, the facts which constitute the ground of objection must be proved throughout. It may be that these parties have made two notes bearing the same date, and for the same sums, without seals, and sued upon them. We ought rather to intend this in support of the judgment. The judgments must be affirmed, with costs.

Judgments affirmed.

Lawrence, for plaintiff.

LI. StocJdon, for defendant.

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

Per Cxjr.

We cannot make any intendment to overturn a judgment. It must clearly appear to us that there was error; and, in order to do this, the facts which constitute the ground of objection must be proved throughout. It may be that these parties have made two notes bearing the same date, and for the same sums, without seals, and sued upon them. We ought rather to intend this in support of the judgment. The judgments must be affirmed, with costs.

Judgments affirmed.

Lawrence, for plaintiff.

LI. StocJdon, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.J.L. 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-dickson-nj-1794.