Case Name: Thomas Gordon v. William Myers
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1824-11
Citations: 8 N.J.L. 84
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas Gordon v. William Myers.
Judges: Ford, J. expressed his opinion to the same effect.
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 84–85

Head Matter:
Thomas Gordon v. William Myers.
CERTIORARI.
A state of demand containing a charge for a certain sum “being the amount of principal and interest due on printing done in the year 1817,” without stating whether at one or several times, and how much is claimed for principal and how much for interest, is insufficient.
The state of demand was as follows:—"William Myers demands of Thomas Gordon forty-four dollars and forty-eight cents, being the amount of principal and interest due on printing done in the year 1817.;’
William Myers.
In answer to a rule the justice certified.—“I received a letter from the defendant in the above action, Thomas Gordon, on the return day of the summons, and before the time of trial, stating that the demand was unjust, that he owed nothing to the plaintiff and that he could not attend, and requesting an adjournment to the extent the law would permit, at Howell's tavern, and that I would issue a subpoena for John T. Blackwell, Esq., in his behalf, and inform of the time and place of trial. The plaintiff attended from New Brunswick with the witness and insisted on trial, and there being no plea or offset filed and no other appearance than the letter aforesaid, I proceeded to trial.”
After the examination of a witness he rendered judgment for the plaintiff.
The insufficiency of the state of demand, and the refusal of an adjournment were assigned by the counsel of Gordon as reasons for reversal.
Saxton, for plaintiff.
Wood, for defendant.

Opinion:
Ewing, C. J.
The state of demand is insufficient. How much is claimed for principal and how much for interest, is not shewn. "Printing done in 1817," but whether at one or at several times in that year is not stated. How could a defendant under such a state of demand preparo to shew that the charge of the plaintiff for the printing, or for any part of it, was excessive ?
Ford, J. expressed his opinion to the same effect.
Eossell, J.
The application for an adjournment was made on the return day of the summons, upon reasonable grounds and without any appearance of the affectation of delay.
Judgment reversed.