Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 N.J.L. 297

James v. Dickson

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided November 15, 1794

Supreme Court of New Jersey · decided 1794-11-15

These were two cases that came before the court on the return of a certiorari to Justice Dickenson, before whom the plaintiff below had obtained judgment by default for the amount of his demand. The objection taken was, that the bills given in evidence were sealed bills, and therefore the actions were improperly brought in the name of the assignee.

Decided 1794-11-15

Per Cxjr.

¶1We cannot make any intendment to overturn a judgment. It must clearly appear to us that there was error; and, in order to do this, the facts which constitute the ground of objection must be proved throughout. It may be that these parties have made two notes bearing the same date, and for the same sums, without seals, and sued upon them. We ought rather to intend this in support of the judgment. The judgments must be affirmed, with costs.

¶2Judgments affirmed.

¶3Lawrence, for plaintiff.

¶4LI. StocJdon, for defendant.

/1/njl/297 · .json · Public domain