York v. Ackerman

Supreme Court of New Jersey

York v. Ackerman

3 N.J.L. 900

DecidedNovember 15, 1811

StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.J.L. 900 (York v. Ackerman) 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

York v. Ackerman, 3 N.J.L. 900 (N.J. 1811).

Pincite

Opinion

Pennington, J.

— The objection to the judgment below, is, that it was rendered on Sunday. If the fact was so, the judgment must be reversed. But the justice, in his returns, certifies that the judgment was actually confessed before him at his office on Monday, the third of June, and entered that day; but that mistaking the day of the month, he had put it down the second of June, instead of the third, as it ought to have been. I think that this clerical error is amendable, and that judgment ought to be affirmed.

The other Judges concurred.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pennington, J.

— The objection to the judgment below, is, that it was rendered on Sunday. If the fact was so, the judgment must be reversed. But the justice, in his returns, certifies that the judgment was actually confessed before him at his office on Monday, the third of June, and entered that day; but that mistaking the day of the month, he had put it down the second of June, instead of the third, as it ought to have been. I think that this clerical error is amendable, and that judgment ought to be affirmed.

The other Judges concurred.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.J.L. 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/york-v-ackerman-nj-1811.