Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1809

Bell v. Vanriper

Bell v. Vanriper
Supreme Court of New Jersey · Decided February 15, 1809 · Kirkpatrick, Pennington, Rossem
3 N.J.L. 510

Bell v. Vanriper

Opinion of the Court

Kirkpatrick, C. J. and Rossem. J.

Were of opinion, that both rules should be allowed.

Concurring Opinion

Pennington, J.

Concurred with his brethren in allowing a rule fora foreign jury; but was decidedly against that for a trial at bar. In the first place, he did not think the plaintiff within the act of Assembly as it respected the sum in controversy; but if he was, he could perceive no necessity for a trial at bar; he was of opinion that this Court listened too readily to applications for trials at bar. Trials at bar were very expensive, and often-times oppressive and ruinous to the parties, by compelling the attendance of themselves, their counsel, witnesses, and jurors, at a great distance from their homes, and at an immense expense. Besides, since the practice had been obtained of reserving points at *387circuit, there could be very little, if any use for trials at bar. If any difficulty arose at the Circuit, the [*] point was reserved, and afterwards deliberately argued and decided at the bar. Both rules allowed.

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