Legal Opinion

Hazeltine v. Wilson

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided February 15, 1893PublishedCited by 6 opinions

On certiorari.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Van Syckel, J.

This action was instituted in the District Court of the city of Trenton to recover for services rendered and money expended.

The plaintiff was non-suited in the District Court, and that judgment was affirmed on appeal to the Mercer Pleas. The case is in this court on certiorari for review.

The facts of the case, as shown by the uncontroverted testimony, are as follows:

Samuel K. Wilson, the defendant, applied to one Bailey, *251in the city of Trenton, for one Peter Keenan, for a loan of $8,500 to Keenan, to be secured by a mortgage on Keenan’s…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Bunton v. CampredonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Federal Wine & Liquor Co. v. Jabberwock Country ClubSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1938
  3. Gallagher v. McBrideSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1901
  4. Chesebrough v. TirrillSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1898
  5. Herendeen Manufacturing Co. v. MooreSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1901

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API