State v. Erb

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Erb

47 N.J.L. 92, 1885 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 70

DecidedFebruary 15, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 47 N.J.L. 92 (State v. Erb) 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

State v. Erb, 47 N.J.L. 92, 1885 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 70 (N.J. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Parker, J.

An application was made to the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Essex, by William Erb and [93]*93Daniel Mueller, requesting said court to grant them a license to keep an inn and tavern in the township of Bloomfield, in-said county. Among the reasons stated by the remonstrants in opposition to granting the license was the fact that the application was in the name of William Erb and Daniel Mueller, and subsequently the court was requested to grant tire license to Erb alone.

The signers of the recommendation affixed their, names thereto, and it was attached to the petition of both the applicants. Afterwards, the court ordered the name of Mueller stricken out of the petition and granted the license do Erb alone. In this the court erred. A recommendation to grant a license to two persons cannot be taken and used as a recommendation to license only one of them, because the one left out might be the one on whom the signers of the recommendation most relied.

The license is vacated.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Parker, J.

An application was made to the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Essex, by William Erb and [93]*93Daniel Mueller, requesting said court to grant them a license to keep an inn and tavern in the township of Bloomfield, in-said county. Among the reasons stated by the remonstrants in opposition to granting the license was the fact that the application was in the name of William Erb and Daniel Mueller, and subsequently the court was requested to grant tire license to Erb alone.

The signers of the recommendation affixed their, names thereto, and it was attached to the petition of both the applicants. Afterwards, the court ordered the name of Mueller stricken out of the petition and granted the license do Erb alone. In this the court erred. A recommendation to grant a license to two persons cannot be taken and used as a recommendation to license only one of them, because the one left out might be the one on whom the signers of the recommendation most relied.

The license is vacated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 N.J.L. 92, 1885 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-erb-nj-1885.