Hasbrouck v. Winkler
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On certiorari to review a judgment of the Essex Common Pleas affirming a judgment of the Newark District Court.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Dixoít, J.
The first reason for reversal is that the action in the District Court was in the form of “trespass on the case ” when it should have been “ trespass.” This objection was not presented below. Had it been, an amendment could have been made under the authority of section 5 of the Newark District Courts act, (Pamph. L. 1873, p. 245,) section 2 of the supplement to the Small Cause act, approved February 6th, 1858, (Pamph. L., p. 33,) and section 46 of the Practice act, (Nix. Dig., p. 739.) The proceedings may now be amended. American Life Ins.…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Wilentz v. HendricksonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1943
- Geo. W. Robinson & Co. v. Hyer Bros.Supreme Court of Florida · 1895
- General Electric Contracts Corp. v. BandSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1936
- In re Halstead & Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1913
- B.A.P., Inc. v. Robert P. McCulloch Prosecuting Attorney of St. Louis County, Mo. Ronald A. Battelle, Col., Chief of Police, St. Louis County Police DepartmentCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1999
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.