Taylor Provision Co. v. Adams Express Co.
| Decision Date | 20 November 1905 |
| Citation | 72 N.J.L. 220,65 A. 508 |
| Parties | TAYLOR PROVISION CO. v. ADAMS EXPRESS CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to Supreme Court.
Action by the Taylor Provision Company against the Adams Express Company. An order of the circuit court was affirmed by the Supreme Court (59 Atl. 10, 71 N. J. Law, 523), and defendant brings error. Reversed, with directions.
Conover English and Robert H. McCarter, for plaintiff in error. Scott Scammell, for defendant in error.
In a common-law action on contract, brought in the Mercer circuit court, the defendant obtained a rule requiring the plaintiff to show cause why the service of summons and declaration should not be set aside. On return of the rule it was dimissed, and thereupon the defendant sued out a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court to reverse the dismissal. The Supreme Court, however, on a consideration of the merits of the original rule, affirmed the proceedings in the circuit court, and such affirmance is now brought here by writ of error.
The action of the Supreme Court was throughout irregular. The circuit court is a constitutional court of record, having general jurisdiction over common-law actions inter partes, and proceeding therein acording to the course of the common, law. As such its orders are reviewable, not by certiorari, but by writ of error, and only after final judgment Groenvelt v. Burwell, 1 Salk. 263; Bac. Abr. tit "Error" A; 1 Arch. Pr. 206; Den (Rutherford) v. Fen. 21 N. J. Law, 700; State v. Wood, 23 N. J. Law, 560; Cooper v. Vanderveer, 47 N. J. Law, 178. The writ of certiorari should not have been allowed, and, after allowance, it should have been dismissed. It conferred on the Supreme Court no authority to pass judgment upon the proceedings in the circuit, and consequently the affirmance thereof was illegal.
The affirmance is reversed, and the Supreme Court is directed to dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. As the certiorari was allowed at the instance of the plaintiff in error, it should not recover any costs in this court
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Court Of Common Pleas Of Mercer County
...Vanpelt's, Ex'rs v. Veghte, 14 N.J.L. 207; Rutherford v. Fen, 21 N.J.L. 700; State v. Wood, 23 N.J.L. 560; Taylor Provision Co. v. Adams Express Co., 72 N.J.L. 220, 65 A. 508; Jaudel v. Schoelzke, 95 N.J.L. 171, 112 A. 328; Defiance Fruit Co. v. Fox, 76 N.J.L. 482, 486, 70 A. 460; Eder v. H......
-
State v. Longo.
...has been improvidently granted, this court will reverse and direct the Supreme Court to dismiss the writ. Taylor Provision Co. v. Adams Express Company, 72 N.J.L. 220, 65 A. 508. We conclude that the judgment below should be reversed and that the writ of certiorari should be dismissed as im......
-
Borough of Oradell v. State Bd. of Tax Appeals
...of West Hoboken, 39 N.J.L. 232, affirmed, 40 N.J.L. 193; Illingworth v. Rich, 58 N.J.L. 507, 34 A. 757, and Taylor Provision Co. v. Adams Express Co., 72 N.J.L. 220, 65 A. 508. The point is patently If, for lack of jurisdiction, the County Tax Board could not lawfully proceed to hear and de......
-
P. & D. Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Barnes
...the making of such an order was "judicial error," reviewable only on appeal after final judgment. See, also, Taylor Provision Co. v. Adams Express Co., 72 N.J.L. 220, 65 A. 508; Five-Mile Beach Lumber Co. v. Friday, 75 N.J.L. 175, 66 A. 901; Neubauer v. McCutcheon, 98 N.J.L. 94, 118 A. 704;......