Rankin v. Ingwersen
10 A. 545, 49 N.J.L. 481, 1887 N.J. LEXIS 26
Opinions
The charge in this case was in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, upon the rule to show cause why the first verdict should not be set aside and a new trial ordered. Ingwersen v. Rankin, 18 Vroom 18. I concur in the views there expressed by that court, and therefore am of opinion that there is no error in the record before us. The judgment should be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rankin v. Ingwersen, 10 A. 545, 49 N.J.L. 481, 1887 N.J. LEXIS 26 (N.J. 1887).
10 A. 545 (Rankin v. Ingwersen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Longi v. Raymond-Commerce Corp.
113 A.2d 69 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)
City of Newark v. Adler
66 A.2d 185 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1949)
Swift & Co. v. Peoples Coal & Oil Co.
186 A. 629 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1936)
Whiffin v. De Tweede Northwestern & Pacific Hypotheekbank
12 P.2d 271 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1932)
Bailey v. Kelly
122 P. 1027 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1912)
Isham v. Broderick
95 N.W. 224 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1903)