Case ID: njl_89/html/0712-01.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

BENJAMIN L. HARRISON, APPELLANT, v. ALBERT DICKERSON, RESPONDENT.
    Submitted July 10, 1916
    Decided November 20, 1916.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
    “The Common Pleas nonsuited the plaintiff in an action brought in that court and 'ad damnum $500. The ground of the nonsuit was that the plaintiff, when sued in a justice’s court upon a cause of action that arose out of the same transaction, did not file any set-off or recoupment based upon the claim for which the action in the Pleas was brought. The judgment of nonsuit was erroneous under the cases of Sipley v. Wass, 47 N. J. L. 187, and Clancy v. Neumayer, 51 Id. 299. It is argued that these decisions are inapplicable because of section 25 of the Small Cause act of 1903 (Revisión), which was enacted after the decisions in question had been made. We do not think that section 25 has this effect; it provides what shall happen if a set-off is filed hut does not abrogate the previous decisions as to the compulsion to file it.
    “The judgment of the Pleas is-reversed and a venire de novo awarded.”
    For the appellant, Elmer W. Romine.
    
    For the respondent, James H. Bolitho.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppeniieiaier, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, ,TJ. 12.

For reversal—None.