Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1887

Rankin v. Ingwersen

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Decided March 15, 1887 · Affirmance, Brown, Clement, Cole, Depue, Dixon, Magie, McGregor, Parker, Paterson, Reed, Reversal, Scudder, Syckel, Whitaker

49 N.J.L. 481; 10 A. 545; 1887 N.J. LEXIS 26

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Whiffin v. De Tweede Northwestern & Pacific Hypotheekbank (Idaho 1932)
Longi v. Raymond-Commerce Corp. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1955)
City of Newark v. Adler (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1949)
Swift & Co. v. Peoples Coal & Oil Co. (Conn. 1936)
Bailey v. Kelly (Kan. 1912)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

The charge in this case was in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, upon the rule to show cause why the first verdict should not be set aside and a new trial ordered. Ingwersen v. Rankin, 18 Vroom 18. I concur in the views there expressed by that court, and therefore am of opinion that there is no error in the record before us. The judgment should be affirmed.

Dissenting Opinion

Dixon, J.,

(dissenting.) After the opinion of the Supreme Court in this case was rendered, a second trial was had, on which a substantially different state of facts appeared, giving rise to a different question of law. On this legal question, I think the present judgment is erroneous.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Magie, Parker, Reed, Scudder, Yan Syckel, Brown, Clement, Cole, McGregor, Whitaker. 12. For reversal — Depue, Dixon, Paterson. 3.

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