Woodruff v. Badgley
This text of 12 N.J.L. 367 (Woodruff v. Badgley) 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.
Opinion
The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas on the appeal in this case was erroneously rendered and entered. The judgment should -be specific both as to-the debt or damages and the costs. Hendricks v. Craig, 2 South. 567; Hann. v. Gosling, 4 Halst. 248. The nature-of the proceeding requires the court not merely to reverse- or affirm the judgment of the justice, but to render such judgment as he ought to have given. Griff. Tr. (1st ed.) 117; Penn. Tr. (1st ed.) 74. The language of the 37th section of the act constituting courts for the trial of small causes has been very incorrectly supposed to sanction and support a general entry. It was intended to prescribe a regulation as to the allowance of costs, but not as to the form or substance of the judgment on the appeal.
Let the judgment be reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
12 N.J.L. 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodruff-v-badgley-nj-1831.