Legal Opinion

Rice v. Oxsenius

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided May 15, 1810Published

CERTIORARI. The action below was brought on the following state of demand: Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff below, Oxsenius. It was contended on the part of the defendant below, the plaintiff in certiorari, that the state of demand, and also the credit, was too general and uncertain.

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

We think the state of demand not sufficiently particular; it ought at least to have stated the kind of work and labor done; and also the credit is too vague.1

Judgment reversed.

Cited is Hagerty v. Vankirk, 4 Holst. 118; Farley v. McIntyre, 1 Gr. 190; Howell v. Burnett, Spenc. 265.

Credit “ by sundries,” insufficient. Vide ante, 206, 561, 628; South. 104, 220; 4 Halst. 118.

2Cases cited1 opinion

Taggart v. FoxSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1854