Legal Opinion

Bailey v. Osborn

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided November 14, 1910PublishedCited by 5 opinions

On error to the Monmouth Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Swayze, J.

The plaintiff’s declaration in this case is extremely prolix and inartificial. He seems to have thought it necessary to meet by anticipation a possible claim of the defendants that they were acting under the authority of chapter 93 of the laws of 1903. Pamph. I., p. 131. The defendants, not to be outdone, have joined a plea in abatement of the writ with pleas in bar of the action. Such pleading cannot be too severely condemned. It is, however, possible to spell out of the pleadings a declaration in trespass quare clausum fregit and a plea of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hart v. Board of Chosen FreeholdersSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1894
  2. Luderitz v. LuderitzNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1917
  3. State v. ParkerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1890

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Kelley v. CurtissNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954
  2. In Re AppropriationOhio Court of Appeals · 1962
  3. City of Bessemer v. AbbottSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
  4. Director of Highways v. BennettOhio Court of Appeals · 1962
  5. Pyles v. CallisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API