Roberts v. Holsworth

10 N.J.L. 57
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided May 15, 1828·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Ch. Justice.

To officers, a writ of mandamus may go to direct them how to'proceed, and what to do; but a mandamus to a Court, only, directs them to proceed according to law, and does not direct them how to proceed. The furthest we have ever gone in these cases of mandamus, is in appeals to the Common Pleas, from iLu judgment of a justice, where we have directed the Court of Common Pleas, to restore an appeal which had been dismissed. But this is in effect nothing more than ordering them to proceed, and not directing the manner in which they shall proceed. Motion denied.

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

Roberts v. Holsworth, 10 N.J.L. 57 (N.J. 1828).

10 N.J.L. 57 (Roberts v. Holsworth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Aparin v. County of Gloucester
783 A.2d 271 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2000)
Moss v. Shinn
775 A.2d 243 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2000)
DeHart v. Bambrick
427 A.2d 113 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1981)
NJ Optometric Ass'n v. Hillman-Kohan Eyeglasses, Inc.
388 A.2d 1299 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1978)
US Trust Co. of New York v. State
353 A.2d 514 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1976)
Abbruzzese v. Berzak
412 F. Supp. 201 (D. New Jersey, 1976)
Bd. of Taxation of Essex Co. v. Belleville Cty.
223 A.2d 359 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1966)
JH Becker, Inc. v. Marlboro Tp.
198 A.2d 463 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1964)
Switz v. Township of Middletown
130 A.2d 15 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1957)