Quimby v. King

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Quimby v. King

43 N.J.L. 454

DecidedJune 15, 1881

StatusPublished

This text of 43 N.J.L. 454 (Quimby v. King) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 N.J.L. 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quimby-v-king-nj-1881.