Seely v. Fostee

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Seely v. Fostee

3 N.J.L. 408

DecidedMay 15, 1808

StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.J.L. 408 (Seely v. Fostee) 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

Seely v. Fostee, 3 N.J.L. 408 (N.J. 1808).

Pincite

Opinion

Kirkpatrick, C. J.

The state of demand filed in this case, I think, is altogether insufficient. It consists of four items. The first, if it can be understood at all, gives no cause of action to the plaintiff. The third is in these words, “ To an account on my bar booh, $3.45,” without giving the particulars ; and the fourth is like to it, viz: “ To an account for ferriage, $38.25,” also without particulars; and all these three without any date. The second item is in these words, “ 1 Sealed bill or note, dated June 21,1791, $12.43,” whereas the note which comes up with the proceedings is really for £2 2 0.

If such vague demands were to be supported, it would deprive defendants totally of their defense. Eeverse.

[4]*4The other judges concurred.

Judgment reversed.

Anderson, att’y for plaintiff.

Cited in Vanguilder v. Stull, 5 Halst. 233.

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

Kirkpatrick, C. J.

The state of demand filed in this case, I think, is altogether insufficient. It consists of four items. The first, if it can be understood at all, gives no cause of action to the plaintiff. The third is in these words, “ To an account on my bar booh, $3.45,” without giving the particulars ; and the fourth is like to it, viz: “ To an account for ferriage, $38.25,” also without particulars; and all these three without any date. The second item is in these words, “ 1 Sealed bill or note, dated June 21,1791, $12.43,” whereas the note which comes up with the proceedings is really for £2 2 0.

If such vague demands were to be supported, it would deprive defendants totally of their defense. Eeverse.

[4]*4The other judges concurred.

Judgment reversed.

Anderson, att’y for plaintiff.

Cited in Vanguilder v. Stull, 5 Halst. 233.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.J.L. 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seely-v-fostee-nj-1808.