Case ID: njl_3/html/0470-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[*] SHAVER against NORRIS.
    OH CERTIORARI.
    The action below was brought by Norris against Shaver. The state of demand contains eight items, amounting to thirteen dollars, charged in the form of account, in this manner:
    To pleading against Tite Prince, $1.50
    And in the same manner, seven other charges [664] for pleading against other persons. There was also another small charge for money paid on an execution, and judgment for the whole.
    
      Mr. Halsey
    
    moved to reverse the judgment, on the ground that the charges for pleading did not constitute a legal ground of action. He could not tell what the plaintiff below meant by pleading; but the most rational interpretation was, that the plaintiff below, Norris, was one of those persons who are denominated bush lawyers, and that the charges were for advocating causes in justice’s courts. He apprehended that such services would not entitle the person performing them, to an action.
   By the Court.

An action cannot be maintained on this state of demand.

Judgment reversed.

Cited in Seely v. Crane, 3 Gr. 35; Van Atta v. McKinney's Ex. 1 Harr. 235.