Quimby v. King

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Quimby v. King

43 N.J.L. 454

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 15, 1881·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judge, in accordance with the directions of the one hundred and thirty-eighth section of the Practice act, amended the pleadings for the purpose of determining, in the existing suit, the real question in controversy between the [455]*455parties. There was no error in this, and consequently there was no error in the refusal to charge complained of, which was correct in view of the amendment.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Dixon, Parker, Reed, Van Syckel, Clement, Cole, Dodd, Green, Whittaker. 11.

For reversal—None.

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

Per Curiam.

The judge, in accordance with the directions of the one hundred and thirty-eighth section of the Practice act, amended the pleadings for the purpose of determining, in the existing suit, the real question in controversy between the [455]*455parties. There was no error in this, and consequently there was no error in the refusal to charge complained of, which was correct in view of the amendment.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Dixon, Parker, Reed, Van Syckel, Clement, Cole, Dodd, Green, Whittaker. 11.

For reversal—None.

Quimby v. King, 43 N.J.L. 454 (N.J. 1881).

Pincite

43 N.J.L. 454 (Quimby v. King) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.