Case Name: LONGSTREET against CUMMINGS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1807-05
Citations: 2 N.J.L. 210
Docket Number: 
Parties: LONGSTREET against CUMMINGS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 195–195

Head Matter:
LONGSTREET against CUMMINGS.
ON CERTIORABI.
Filing a promissory note, is not filing a state of demand.
The plaintiff below, the defendant in error, filed before the justice, a note of hand, as the state of his demand, and fliis was assigned for error.
Ande?‘son, for plaintiff.

Opinion:
Pennington, J.
— 'The delivering to the justice, the evidence on which the action is founded, instead of a statement of the plaintiff's ground of action, is not such a state of demand as the act requires. Besides, in case the instrument of writing, on which the plaintiff's demand is founded, is filed as the state of demand, it must remain on the files of the justice's court, after it is paid off, and cannot be delivered up to the person paying it off; from which, great inconvenience and danger [*] will result; he had given a similar opinion on a former occasion, but he believed that his brethren had doubts of the propriety of it.
Kirkpatrick, C. J.
— Said he had entertained doubts of the propriety of reversing the judgment of justices, [153] for this cause; but on mature reflection, he was inclined to think it was right; great inconvenience must ensue from filing with the justice, the note, bond, or other instrument on which the action of the plaintiff is founded.
Rossell, J. — Concurred.
Judgment reversed.