James v. Burnet
Supreme Court of New Jersey
This was an action of replevin which was tried at the Essex Circuit and a verdict found for the defendant. Upon the coming in of the postea, a rule was granted to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial had, upon the ground that the jury -had been misdirected by the charge of the court, and because the verdict was against evidence.
1Opinion of the Court
The facts of the case, and the questions raised and decided, . appear in the opinion of the court, which was delivered by
Whitehead, J.
This action was brought to recover certain goods and chattels, taken from the plaintiff by the defendant on the 5th day of June, 1843. The defendant pleaded property in the goods. On the trial of the cause, it appeared that William H. Backus and Luther E. Backus, for some time prior, and up to January, 1843, had been engaged at Newark in the manufacture and sale of tin ware, under the firm of Backus & Brother. That in January 1843, the plaintiff became…
2Cited by2 opinions
- In re C. Lewis Lavine, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1941
- Greene v. SahlinNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961