Rankin v. Ingwersen
HENRY RANKIN, IN ERROR v. AUGUST INGWERSEN, IN ERROR
Summary
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.
The Chancellor.
The charge in this case was in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, upon the rule to show cause why the first verdict should not be set aside and a new trial ordered. Ingwersen v. Rankin, 18 Vroom 18 . I concur in the views there expressed by that court, and therefore am of opinion that there is no error in the record before us. The judgment should be affirmed.
Dissent
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Dixon, J.,
(dissenting.) After the opinion of the Supreme Court in this case was rendered, a second trial was had, on which a substantially different state of facts appeared, giving rise to a different question of law. On this legal question, I think the present judgment is erroneous.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Magie, Parker, Reed, Scudder, Yan Syckel, Brown, Clement, Cole, McGregor, Whitaker. 12. For reversal — Depue, Dixon, Paterson. 3.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.