Newcomb v. Davis
This text of 2 N.J.L. 82 (Newcomb v. Davis) 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
— This proceeding is altogether erroneous. The state of demand filed, does not contain a lawful ground of action. The judgment itself, too, is entered in figures and not in words at length, and this is assigned as a reason of reversal. According to the opinion of Cole and Petty.1
I think this judgment must be reversed.
Rossell, J. — Concurred.
— This judgment being entered hi figures brings this case within that of Cole v. Petty, but [61] this is the least error in the proceedings; out of five separate and distinct charges for damages, there is not a single legal cause of action stated. I concur in the reversal.
Judgment reversed.
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. 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newcomb-v-davis-nj-1806.