Kennealy v. State
| Decision Date | 24 February 1902 |
| Citation | 67 N.J.L. 435,51 A. 475 |
| Parties | KENNEALY v. STATE (LEARY, Prosecutor). |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Certiorari by the state, on the prosecution of Matthew Leary, against William Kennealy, to review a judgment. Affirmed.
Argued November term, 1901, before VAN SYCKEL, FORT, and GARRETSON, JJ.
Horace L. Allen, for plaintiff.
M. T. Rosenberg, for defendant.
VAN SYCKEL, J. This suit was brought by Kennealy in the First district court of Jersey City to recover money bet on a dog fight in New York. The money was paid by the stakeholder to Leary, the defendant below, who resides in New Jersey. The New York statute, which was duly proved, provides as follows:
Prior to this suit in New Jersey the plaintiff recovered a judgment in New York against the stakeholder, which is not satisfied. The New York statute is substantially like our own, and therefore the question as to the policy of permitting a recovery in this state does not arise. Penal statutes of one state can have no operation in another. They are strictly local, and can be enforced only in the state adopting them. Ogden v. Folliot, 3 Term R. 726; Barnes v. Whitaker, 22 Ill. 606; Bank v. Price, 33 Md. 487, 3 Am. Rep. 204; Derrickson v. Smith, 27 N. J. Law, 167.
The first question to be considered is whether the gaming act of New York is a penal or a remedial act The New York statute has been regarded by the New York courts as a remedial statute in the following cases: Ruckman v. Pitcher, 1 N. Y. 392; Storey v. Brennan, 15 N. Y. 524, 69 Am. Dec. 629; Ruckman v. Pitcher, 20 N. Y. 9. In Boice v. Gibbons, 8 N. J. Law, 324, Chief Justice Ewing distinguished a remedial statute as follows: "A statute which gives a remedy for an injury against him by whom it is committed to the person injured, and to him alone, and limits the recovery to the mere amount of the loss sustained,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Masci v. Young
...so. It does not impose a penalty, it merely establishes a right. It visits only lawful damages for violation of a right. Kennealy v. Leary, 67 N. J. Law, 435, 51 A. 475. Nor is it contrary to the policy of our law. Our statute imposes upon a nonresident, by the fact of operation of his car ......
-
Martinez v. W. G. Fritz Co., Inc.
...has been satisfied, there is a complete bar. Traflet v. Empire Life Insurance Company, 64 N. J. Law 387, 46 A. 204; Kennealy v. Leary, 67 N. J. Law, 435, 51 A. 475. Respondent further urges that, at the time the appeal was taken, the statute governing appeals, Act March 21, 1932, P. 1, chap......
- State v. Whitehead
-
Slingerland v. Gillespie
... ... J., on that occasion. Slingerland v. Water Co., 58 N. J. Law, 411, 33 Atl. 843. The state of facts recited was the same as that above given, except that there seems to have been no dispute in that case that the entry was after the tender, ... ...