TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McGowan v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

MARY McGOWAN v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

McGowan v. Metro. Life Ins., 30 A. 433 (N.J. 1894)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 15, 1894
Judges
Garrison
Citations
30 A. 43357 N.J.L. 39028 Vroom 3901894 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 1
Headnotes
“An act concerning appeals from District Courts in this state” {Pamph. L. 1892, p. 257) authorizes an appeal from a judgment rendered by the-First District Court of the city of Newark for a sum in excess of §200.
Summary
Rule to show cause.

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

Opinion of the Court — Garrison

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by Garrison, J.

The relator asks for a mandamus to compel, one of the District Courts of the city of Newark to issue an execution upon a judgment recovered in said court, notwithstanding the defendant therein had taken an appeal to the-Court of Common Pleas under color of “An act concerning appeals from District Courts in this state.” Pamph. L. 1892, p. 257. The contention of the relator is that this statute-gives no right of appeal from the judgment-in question.

We are unable, however, to see any possible ground for-questioning the defendant’s right to this appeal. The legislature has given it in language so plain and comprehensive-that there is neither room for interpretation or construction. “ From any judgment obtained in any District Court established by law in any city of this state, whether by general or-special statute.” Where the amount in dispute is over $25,. “ either party may appeal both as to matter of law and fact to the Court of Common Pleas,” &c. Such is the language of the lawmaker. It may be true, as argued, that this act works confusion; that it produces absurd results; that it *391 never would have been enacted if its consequences had been foreseen, but whence arises any authority in the judicial department to nullify legislative action because of these or similar reasons ?

Admitting without examination the force of all the relator’s criticisms of this act, it still remains as a perfectly plain and explicit legislative mandate, to be obeyed accordingly until it is repealed by the authority that brought it into existence. •

There is not shown any pretext for judicial interference. The writ of mandamus is denied, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

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

1897: 11939: 118972026peak 1897 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McGowan v. Metropolitan Life Insurance38 A. 671 (N.J. 1897)
  2. Saslow v. Previti3 A.2d 811 (N.J. 1939)

Most recent

  1. Saslow v. Previti3 A.2d 811 (N.J. 1939)
  2. McGowan v. Metropolitan Life Insurance38 A. 671 (N.J. 1897)

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