State v. Applicants for a Road

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Applicants for a Road

3 N.J.L. 949

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided May 15, 1812·Published

Opinion

Kirkpatrick, C. J.

— I think that this motion is a special motion, requiring notice.

Rossexx, J. — Of that opinion.

Pennington, J.

— According to former decisions of this Court, this writ ought not to have been issued; but on mo[691]*691tion in open court, and special circumstances shewn. In my opinion, therefore, it ought to be quashed before it is filed, and that no notice is necessary in such case.

Rule refused.

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

Kirkpatrick, C. J.

— I think that this motion is a special motion, requiring notice.

Rossexx, J. — Of that opinion.

Pennington, J.

— According to former decisions of this Court, this writ ought not to have been issued; but on mo[691]*691tion in open court, and special circumstances shewn. In my opinion, therefore, it ought to be quashed before it is filed, and that no notice is necessary in such case.

Rule refused.

State v. Applicants for a Road, 3 N.J.L. 949 (N.J. 1812).

Pincite

3 N.J.L. 949 (State v. Applicants for a Road) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.