Middleton v. Taylor
Supreme Court of New Jersey
This was an action of debt, which came on for trial before Kinsey, C. J., and Smith, J., when the following questions arose before the court, and were resolved— 1st. Notice of taking depositions before a judge, for the purpose of perpetuating testimony under the act of August 30th, 1784, had been served upon Mr. Woodruff, attorney for the defendant.
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt, which came on for trial before Kinsey, C. J., and Smith, J., when the following questions arose before the court, and were resolved— 1st. Notice of taking depositions before a judge, for the purpose of perpetuating testimony under the act of August 30th, 1784, had been served upon Mr. Woodruff, attorney for the defendant. When the deposition was offered in evidence it was objected that under the act of assembly the notice must be given to the party, and as no notice had been given to him in this case, the evidence was not legally taken.
1Opinion of the Court
Kinsey, C. J.,
said he should be glad to be able to overrule objections of this kind, but the words of the law were authoritative, and compelled him to reject the deposition.
The action was brought to recover £25, being the amount which defendant had agreed to pay the plaintiff for the services of his apprentice; the apprentice had been delivered, and served the defendant agreeably to the contract. The defendant objected that the contract was void, having* been made by parol, and that plaintiff had acquired his title by parol, and moved for a non-suit on these grounds.
Per Cur.
This motion for a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Reed v. Penrose's ExecutorsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
- Hartman's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859