Kantor v. City of Perth Amboy

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Kantor v. City of Perth Amboy

7 A.2d 403, 122 N.J.L. 588, 37 Gummere 588, 1939 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 148

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJuly 8, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.2d 403 (Kantor v. City of Perth Amboy) 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

Kantor v. City of Perth Amboy, 7 A.2d 403, 122 N.J.L. 588, 37 Gummere 588, 1939 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 148 (N.J. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Parker, J.

I think that the application is devoid of merit, but it is unnecessary to consider that question at length because the matter is not presented in such form as to call for any decision by the court.

No rule of practice is better settled than the rule that where a rule to show cause is made based on an affidavit containing statements of fact, the evidential force of the affidavit expires with the making of the rule to show cause, and that the facts alleged in the original affidavit can be brought before the court only by depositions taken on notice; or, perhaps, by stipulation. Peer v. Bloxham, 82 N. J. Law 288, and cases cited, to which may be added Morris v. Quick, 45 Id. 308; Atkinson v. Prine, 46 Id. (at p. 33); Shadduck v. Marsh, 21 Id. 434, and Klein v. Adams Express Co., 61 Id. 530.

The rule to show cause is discharged, with costs.

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

Parker, J.

I think that the application is devoid of merit, but it is unnecessary to consider that question at length because the matter is not presented in such form as to call for any decision by the court.

No rule of practice is better settled than the rule that where a rule to show cause is made based on an affidavit containing statements of fact, the evidential force of the affidavit expires with the making of the rule to show cause, and that the facts alleged in the original affidavit can be brought before the court only by depositions taken on notice; or, perhaps, by stipulation. Peer v. Bloxham, 82 N. J. Law 288, and cases cited, to which may be added Morris v. Quick, 45 Id. 308; Atkinson v. Prine, 46 Id. (at p. 33); Shadduck v. Marsh, 21 Id. 434, and Klein v. Adams Express Co., 61 Id. 530.

The rule to show cause is discharged, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.2d 403, 122 N.J.L. 588, 37 Gummere 588, 1939 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kantor-v-city-of-perth-amboy-nj-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack