TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wall v. Hunt

Garret D. Wall v. James Hunt and Jarret Boyd

Wall v. Hunt, 9 N.J.L. 38 (1827)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 15, 1827
Citations
9 N.J.L. 38
Headnotes
In forcible entry and detainer the nature of the estate of the party grieved must be stated in tlie complaint.
Summary
ON CERTIORARI. This was an action of forcible entry and detainer, brought by Hunt and Boyd against the plaintiff in certiorari, upon the Hollowing complaint exhibited before the justice : [*38 “Warren county, ss. — James Hunt and Jarret Boyd do hereby complain to George W. King, Esq., one of the justices of the peace in and for the county of Warren, against Garret D. Wall, Esq., for this, to wit: That whereas the said Garret D. Wall, Esq., on or about the thirtieth day of June, in the year of our Lord 1826, in the township of Oxford and county of Warren, entered into the dwelling house and messuage of the said James Hunt and Jarret Boyd, of which said dwelling house and messuage the said James Hunt and Jarret Boyd are seized as tenants for years or lessors of the same, and from the thirtieth clay of June aforesaid, until the day of making this complaint, ho, the said Garret D. Wall, Esq., hath held and kept possession of the said messuage or dwelling house unlawfully, with force and strong hand, &c.” A trial was had before the justice and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs below. To reverse this judgment, the defendant below brought this certiorari, and the following among other reasons was relied upon as cause of reversal, viz: Because the complaint does not conform to the statute in setting forth the estate of the plaintiffs, or the description of the premises.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Chief Justice.

The act of the legislature requires that the nature of the estate which the party grieved has in the premises, should be set out in the complaint. (Rev. Law 350, sec. 7.) Now nothing is more manifest than that the *50 estate of the persons making this complaint is not set out. They say they are “ tenants for years or lessors of the same,” that is, either tenants or landlords; but which does not appear. Therefore,

Let the judgment be reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1938: 11952: 119382026peak 1938 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Shaw v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.101 F.2d 92 (3d Cir. 1938)
  2. Spencer v. Steel93 A.2d 225 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1952)

Most recent

  1. Spencer v. Steel93 A.2d 225 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1952)
  2. Shaw v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.101 F.2d 92 (3d Cir. 1938)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list