Case ID: njl_4/html/0136-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Den against Woodward and Allen.
    APPLICATION FOR JURY OF VIEW.
    iseTin action" g ejectment. Buie for 
    
    THIS was one of several actions of ejectment on the same demise, for lands, lying in the township of Warren, jn the county of Somerset, which had been instituted against twenty-eight different defendants. It was alleged, that the causes depended much, upon certain lines, in very old surveys, which run the whole distance of the lands possessed by the defendants, and extended through the possessions of a number of persons against whom no claim had been made or suits brought: that a view of the whole lines would be necessary to enable the jury, to pass understandingly upon this case ; and that it was feared the sheriff would be resisted when he attempted to take the jury over lands not in dispute. It was therefore moved by Mr. Scftt, for plain*tiff, that a special rule be entered, authorizing the sheriff to take the jury of view, over any lands which might be deemed necessary and to run the lines which bounded the premises in dispute, from one end of said lines to the other, upon whose ever land the same might be.
    This motion was resisted by Ewing and F. Frelinghuysen, for the defendants.
    
      Kirkpatrick, C. J.
    was in favour of the rule as applied for. Where ever there exists a doubt as to the true o boundaries of the premises in question, this court has a right to cause a full survey to be made, that justice may be done.
    
      Rossell and Southard, J.
    Were for granting only the common rule for a view. There was no evidence to satisfy them, that any resistance whatever would be made to the sheriff, while in the performance of his duty. They doubted also, the propriety of sending a sheriff, with his jury, over land not in dispute, to the injury perhaps of its owners. And if the special rule, prayed for, should be granted, it might add much to the expense, and it would be oppressive on the defendants, to compel them to bear a part of this expense, or refuse to join in a view, which, in the usual mode, they might think important to their interests.
    
      
      
         Den. Snyder vs. Van Natta, 2 Hal. 25.
      
    
   Rule in common form granted.