Scott v. Eldridge

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Scott v. Eldridge

2 N.J.L. 155

DecidedFebruary 15, 1807

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.J.L. 155 (Scott v. Eldridge) 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

Scott v. Eldridge, 2 N.J.L. 155 (N.J. 1807).

Pincite

Opinion

OH CERTIORARI.

Demand on agreement, must state it to be mutual.

The state of demand before the justice, was as follows:

This state of demand was objected to, as insufficient to support an action; for that the agreement of Abigail Eldridge, the plaintiff below, to sell her right, could not bind Scott, the defendant, unless he agreed to purchase [115] the right of her. The state of demand, ought, therefore, to have set out an agreement on the part of Scott to purchase the right to pay the twenty dollars for it, for which defect in the state of demand, the court reversed the judgment.

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

OH CERTIORARI.

Demand on agreement, must state it to be mutual.

The state of demand before the justice, was as follows:

This state of demand was objected to, as insufficient to support an action; for that the agreement of Abigail Eldridge, the plaintiff below, to sell her right, could not bind Scott, the defendant, unless he agreed to purchase [115] the right of her. The state of demand, ought, therefore, to have set out an agreement on the part of Scott to purchase the right to pay the twenty dollars for it, for which defect in the state of demand, the court reversed the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.J.L. 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-eldridge-nj-1807.