Betts v. Francis
Supreme Court of New Jersey
In replevin. On rule to show cause why verdict should not be set aside. This was an action brought in this court, and upon the-trial of the issue at the Hudson Circuit, at the term of December, 1861, a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff for six cents damages. On the coming in of the postea, a rule was obtained that the defendant should show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial granted.
Read the full summary
In replevin. On rule to show cause why verdict should not be set aside. This was an action brought in this court, and upon the-trial of the issue at the Hudson Circuit, at the term of December, 1861, a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff for six cents damages. On the coming in of the postea, a rule was obtained that the defendant should show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial granted. The-principal reason assigned was, that the judge at* the trial charged the jury erroneously, in regard to the legal title to the property in dispute.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by the
Chief Justice.
The point litigated in this action of replevin at the circuit was whether the property replevied was in the plaintiff in replevin, Frederick B. Betts, or in one-Archibald G. Rogers, who claimed it by virtue of a mortgage upon the same, executed by Frederick F. Betts, the son of Frederick B. Betts, to secure a debt due to Rogers, in part for money borrowed at the time of the execution of the mortgage,, and in part for a debt then due from the mortgagor to the mortgagee.
At the time of the execution of the mortgage the son was, with his…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Keene v. MaceyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1815
3Cited by1 opinion
- Amratlal C. Bhagat v. Bharat A. Bhagat (068312)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2014