N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 124

Tuesday, July 1, 1947 (Morning session)

matter was returned to Chancery and on the application to the court there, the appeal was dismissed. Mind you, everyone of these applications is a hearing with both lawyers, and counsel fees are ultimately charged properly for the time, and so on, that it takes. So, (4) on the third hearing in Chancery, Chancery reversed itself and transferred the cause to the law courts. Now, (5) there was an appeal from this transfer to the law courts to our highest court again - where they had already been, but on another angle - and on this appeal the Chancery order of transfer was affirmed. Now (6) after all that had happened, Wemple then started his suit at law where he should have been in the first place, and he obtained judgment. (7) Then there was an appeal from that, and on appeal the highest court affirmed. There, finally, the decision was had, but after seven different court hearings. There should, at most, have been but one, with an appeal.

Now let's take another, because this other is an even more clear situation which, to me, indicates that the law is not entirely made for man. The New York Sash and Door Company sued the National House and Farms Association at law. (I don't know whether the Chief Justice will remember this case or not. Somehow or other I have mislaid the citation.)

MR. McGRATH: Just give us the facts.

JUDGE HARTSHORNE: The New York Sash and Door Company get judgment. On appeal, step number two, our highest court held that the New York company had sued in the wrong court, since Chancery had jurisdiction over that kind of an action. But three, meanwhile the National company - and mind you, I have pared these facts down to the very lowest terms to try and make it as simple as possible - meanwhile, the National Company had already instituted proceedings in Chancery to restrain the New York company's suit at law and to obtain reformation of the contract between the two. Here the National company's motion for injunction was denied in Chancery and the New York company's motion to dismiss the bill in Chancery was held until final hearing. Now, the fourth step was this - after the trial at law had occurred, the New York company again moved to dismiss the bill in Chancery, which motion was denied. The fifth step was that the New York company appealed from this decision to our highest court, which affirmed the decision in Chancery.

The point to bear in mind is, that after these five hearings in these three different courts the parties had gotten literally nowhere. They were exactly where they had started in the beginning, because the question still had to be determined whether the contract between the two should have been reformed and then, if reformed or not, the question had to be determined whether the contract

Previous Page in Book ********* Table of Contents *********** Next Page in Book