Falkner v. Dorland

• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BEASLEY, CHIEF JUSTICE.
• Citation: Falkner v. Dorland, 54 N.J.L. 409, 24 A. 403 (N.J. 1892)
• Decision Date: 15 June 1892
• Parties: WILLIAM C. FALKNER v. GEORGE H. DORLAND

24 A. 403

54 N.J.L. 409

FOLKNER

v. DORLAND.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 9, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to circuit court, Warren county; before Justice Scudder.

Suit by George H. Dorland against William C. Folkner. Verdict for plaintiff. Defendant's motion for new trial was denied, and he brings error. Writ of error dismissed.

Argued June term, 1892, before the Chief Justice, and Depue, Van Syckel, and Scudder, JJ.

Henry S. Harris, for plaintiff in error.

Joseph M. Roseberry, for defendant in error.

BEASLEY, C. J. This was a suit brought in the circuit court of the county of Warren, and it was there tried, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff. Whereupon a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted was entered, and the motion having been heard upon the case made at the trial, and upon certain supplementary testimony, a new trial was refused. These are the proceedings and decision that are now pending before this court, they having been brought here by a writ of error. This course has been taken, and is supposed to be justifiable, by virtue of an act of the legislature enacted in the year 1890: and the first question to be decided, and which meets us at the threshold of our inquiry, is with respect to the legality of that statute. Upon examination of the subject, my conclusion is that the legislation in question is void from the fact that its title does not express its object. It purports to be a supplement to the act entitled "An act respecting writs of error." The infirmity of this description is that it cannot, with the least show of reason, be so construed as to comprehend the...