Case ID: nj-misc_2/html/0622-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HERMAN M. STOCKFISH ET AL., RELATORS, v. WILLIAM C. SCHWEIGERT ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
    Argued May 7, 1924
    Decided June 25, 1924.
    Mandamus — To District Court — To Direct Entrance of Verdict in Favor of Plaintiff — Application Denied.
    On mandamus.
    
    Before Justices Kalisch, Black and Campbell.
    For the relators, George J. McEwan.
    
    For the defendants, J. Raymond Tiffany.
    
   Per Curiam.

This is an application for a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding and enjoining Hon. Charles J. Carrick, judge of the First District Court of Jersey City, to enter judgment for possession in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for the garage at Nos. 130 and '132 Charles street, Jersey City, New Jersey. The First District Court permitted the tenants, the defendants, to pay into' court after the return day of the summons, the rent, which became due on-November 1st, 1923, and dismissed the action. It is elementary learning that an act of mandamus never lies to review a decision of a lower court simply because it is a wrong decision; as was said by Chief Justice Kirkpatrick, in the case of Squier v. Gale, 6 N. J. L. 158, a mandamus will lie to an inferior court to command them to proceed to judgment, yet it will not lie to command them to proceed to« any particular judgment. The case of Zweig v. Tiffany, 111 Atl. Rep. 263, is not in point.

The application for a mandamus is denied, with costs.