Legal Opinion

Vredenburgh v. Weidmann

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided February 29, 1936PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Memorandum of decision.

Defendant Roy Weidmann claims to have appeared specially for the purpose of this rule. Por the plaintiffs it is claimed that by his subsequent actions in the cause the appearance became general; but I find it unnecessary to go into this question as the rule will be discharged for other reasons.

The determinative question is whether defendant has shown that the sheriff’s return is false in that service, made in Essex county at the house of John Weidmann, a co-defendant and father of Roy Weidmann, and upon said John as a member of the household, was not made “at the usual…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Missell v. HayesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1914
  2. Sweeney v. MinerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1915
  3. Feighan v. SobersSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1913
  4. Missell v. HayesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1913

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Goldfarb v. RoegerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1959
  2. Eckman v. GrearPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1936
  3. A & S Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. WetzlerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1970
  4. Warfield v. FischerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1967
  5. Paterson Stove Repair Co. v. RitzerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API