Lofton v. Champion
This text of 2 N.J.L. 158 (Lofton v. Champion) 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.
Opinion
Demand insufficient. No judgment.1
The state of demand delivered the justice, was as follows:
May 2d, 1805, I, as overseer of the road, do find damage done on the road from John Bodine to Nicholas Sooyes, by Eli Lofton and Joseph 'Nailer, by which I bring this action, against them, my demand is sixty dollars, $60.
[116] The cause was tried by a jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff before the justice, for $41.55. On this verdict the justice rendered no judgment, but issued [*] execution. It appeared by the proceedings sent up by the justice that the real controversy between the parties was about the performance of a contract, respecting the grubbing and clearing a piece of road described in the state of demand; it was contended on the part of the plaintiff in certiorari, that the state of demand was insensible and insufficient; and that as no judgment had been rendered, execution could not legally be issued; and the court being of that opinion, ordered the proceedings before the justice, to be made null and void.
Read, for plaintiff.
See notes to last case. — Ed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 N.J.L. 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lofton-v-champion-nj-1807.