Wallace v. Bradshaw

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Wallace v. Bradshaw

29 A. 156, 56 N.J.L. 339, 27 Vroom 339, 1893 N.J. LEXIS 2

DecidedNovember 15, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A. 156 (Wallace v. Bradshaw) 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

Wallace v. Bradshaw, 29 A. 156, 56 N.J.L. 339, 27 Vroom 339, 1893 N.J. LEXIS 2 (N.J. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Without expressing any opinion upon other matters considered and decided by the Supreme Court, we affirm the judgment of that court upon the ground taken in its opinion, that it has not been made to appear that any apportionment of the labor required among the inhabitants of the township, “ in the same proportion with the tax for the support of government,” was made as the statute contemplates. Rev.,.p. 1006, § 52. Such an apportionment must precede the calling out to work, so that each person of whom work is demanded may know the extent of his duty, and that its performance is justly required of him.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Abbett, Depue, Lippincott, Mague, Reed, Van Syokel, Bogert, Brown, Clement, Krueger, Phelps, Smith. 13.

For reversal—None.

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

Per Curiam.

Without expressing any opinion upon other matters considered and decided by the Supreme Court, we affirm the judgment of that court upon the ground taken in its opinion, that it has not been made to appear that any apportionment of the labor required among the inhabitants of the township, “ in the same proportion with the tax for the support of government,” was made as the statute contemplates. Rev.,.p. 1006, § 52. Such an apportionment must precede the calling out to work, so that each person of whom work is demanded may know the extent of his duty, and that its performance is justly required of him.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Abbett, Depue, Lippincott, Mague, Reed, Van Syokel, Bogert, Brown, Clement, Krueger, Phelps, Smith. 13.

For reversal—None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A. 156, 56 N.J.L. 339, 27 Vroom 339, 1893 N.J. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-bradshaw-nj-1893.