Maires v. Smith

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Maires v. Smith

16 N.J.L. 360

DecidedFebruary 15, 1838

StatusPublished

This text of 16 N.J.L. 360 (Maires v. Smith) 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

Maires v. Smith, 16 N.J.L. 360 (N.J. 1838).

Pincite

Opinions

Hornblower, C. J.

The objection to the summons is not well founded. The return day being in figures is not cause for reversal. The case of Ross v. Ward, was one in which the summons was unintelligible. The constable’s return, in this case, is good, and complete.

There is no valid objection to the state of demand. The services appear to have been for the defendant below..

The party’s forgetting the time and place of trial, is not a matter of surprise in legal contemplation. This Court cannot interfere merely because the judgment is for too much; this is not a Court of equity; it can only reverse for error. The judgment must be affirmed.

Ford, J. Concurs.

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

Hornblower, C. J.

The objection to the summons is not well founded. The return day being in figures is not cause for reversal. The case of Ross v. Ward, was one in which the summons was unintelligible. The constable’s return, in this case, is good, and complete.

There is no valid objection to the state of demand. The services appear to have been for the defendant below..

The party’s forgetting the time and place of trial, is not a matter of surprise in legal contemplation. This Court cannot interfere merely because the judgment is for too much; this is not a Court of equity; it can only reverse for error. The judgment must be affirmed.

Ford, J. Concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 N.J.L. 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maires-v-smith-nj-1838.