Rice v. Oxsenius
3 N.J.L. 661
This text of 3 N.J.L. 661 (Rice v. Oxsenius) 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
Rice v. Oxsenius, 3 N.J.L. 661 (N.J. 1810).
Opinion
We think the state of demand not sufficiently particular; it ought at least to have stated the kind of work and labor done; and also the credit is too vague.1
Judgment reversed.
Cited is Hagerty v. Vankirk, 4 Holst. 118; Farley v. McIntyre, 1 Gr. 190; Howell v. Burnett, Spenc. 265.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Taggart v. Fox
1 Grant 190 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1854)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
3 N.J.L. 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-oxsenius-nj-1810.