Watson v. Hoel

1 N.J.L. 136
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided May 15, 1792·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Cur.

Let the sheriff' stand amerced in the debt and eosts. The prefacing his return with a few specified items and concluding generally with a seizure of “ all the household goods” which may be worth £1200 or £12. is a direct breach of his duty. A particular schedule should be returned ©r all the frauds will be encouraged which the legislature had it in view to prevent. A sheriff cannot plead ignorance nor can the court allow of such a plea, in this case.

Rule absolute.

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

Watson v. Hoel, 1 N.J.L. 136 (N.J. 1792).

1 N.J.L. 136 (Watson v. Hoel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Vitale v. Hotel California, Inc.
446 A.2d 880 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1982)