Roberts v. Holsworth
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Hornblower, on the part of Roberts the defendant, moved for a mandamus to be directed to the Court of Common Pleas of Essex, to compel them either to proceed in the cause, or to discharge the defendant on common bail, and he founded his application upon the following affidavits, viz.
Read the full summary
Hornblower, on the part of Roberts the defendant, moved for a mandamus to be directed to the Court of Common Pleas of Essex, to compel them either to proceed in the cause, or to discharge the defendant on common bail, and he founded his application upon the following affidavits, viz. “ That said defendant was on the 29th of December, A. D. 1825, arrested and held to bail, without a judge’s order, for §500. That said cause (that is Holsworth v. Roberts) was noticed for trial before the Essex Pleas, in April term 1827, and remained without further notice, until April term 1828, when this…
1Opinion of the Court
Ch. Justice.
To officers, a writ of mandamus may go to direct them how to'proceed, and what to do; but a mandamus to a Court, only, directs them to proceed according to law, and does not direct them how to proceed. The furthest we have ever gone in these cases of mandamus, is in appeals to the Common Pleas, from iLu judgment of a justice, where we have directed the Court of Common Pleas, to restore an appeal which had been dismissed. But this is in effect nothing more than ordering them to proceed, and not directing the manner in which they shall proceed. Motion denied.
2Cited by9 opinions
- DeHart v. BambrickNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1981
- JH Becker, Inc. v. Marlboro Tp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1964
- Bd. of Taxation of Essex Co. v. Belleville Cty.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1966
- NJ Optometric Ass'n v. Hillman-Kohan Eyeglasses, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1978
- Abbruzzese v. BerzakDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1976
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.