Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1806

Newcomb v. Davis

Newcomb v. Davis
Supreme Court of New Jersey · Decided September 15, 1806 · Kirkpatrick, Pennington, Rosseit
3 N.J.L. 81

Newcomb v. Davis

Opinion of the Court

Kirkpatrick, C. J.

— This proceeding is altogether erroneous. The state of demand filed, does not contain a lawful ground of action. The judgment itself too, is entered in figures and not in words at length, and this is assigned as a reason of reversal. According to the opinion of Cole and Petty, (a)

I think, this judgment must be reversed.

Rosseit,, J. — Concurred. Pennington, J.

— This judgment being entered in figures brings this case within that of Cole v. Petty, but this is the *61least error in the proceedings; out of the five separate and distinct charges for damages, there is not a single legal cause of action stated. I concur in the reversal.

Crane, for plaintiff.

Judgment reversed.

Ante. *60, — Ed =

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.