N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 234


STATE OF NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1947 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
Thursday, July 3, 1947 (Morning session)

injunctive powers of the federal court.

MR. KAUFMAN: I am opposed to it, absolutely. That is an invasion of property rights.

MR. SMITH: Do you think the rule laid down in Flanigan v Guggenheim Smelting Company, that that should be the elasticity of principles to be preserved in the set-up?

MR. KAUFMAN: I am sorry, but I am not quite familiar with that decision at this time.

MR. SMITH: I'm sorry. I thought you were.

MR. KAUFMAN: I have read so many that I can't remember them all.

I am thinking, for instance, in terms of Hedden v Hand. In that case the Legislature vested the power to abate nuisances in the Court of Chancery. Vice-Chancellor Lane held the statute was constitutional. Mr. Justice Kalisch, for a unanimous court, reversed, and held that the Legislature was vesting the power to proceed by indictment in the Court of Chancery and they were entitled to a jury trial.

I would be opposed to the power in the Legislature to do things of that kind, to take away from the law courts their inherent jurisdiction and vest it in the Court of Chancery. Similarly, I want to apply the same rule to the Court of Chancery.

I would not be opposed to an amendment which would permit a court to finish up a case in its own court.

MR. BROGAN: We must not, I take it, continue a situation where any court feels that it is privileged to claim, even slightly, jurisdiction over another.

MR. KAUFMAN: I said, Chief Justice, that I would not be opposed to an amendment which would permit the law court to deal with equitable defenses.

MR. BROGAN: Under the Constitution the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery was the means of maintaining its power. Now, how can you remedy that?

MR. KAUFMAN: Well, if you recreate the Court of Chancery with inherent jurisdiction, except as hereinafter set forth in the Constitution, which permits the cleaning up of legal defenses, that can be done. It can't be done mechanically.

MR. McGRATH: Is there a distinction in the law between a case in a law court where a man presents a lease which the other side says is fraudulent, and in another case from the law court, where a man has a deed and brings an action in the Court of Chancery to determine that? Where is the distinction?

MR. KAUFMAN: I have no objection to an amendment which would permit the completion of a suit if it was initially started


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