N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 653


MEMORANDUM OF JUDGE RICHARD HARTSHORNE

Double Litigation

  • (3) On the matter being returned to Chancery, the bill was accordingly dismissed.  
  • (4) But, thereafter, Chancery reversed itself, and transferred the cause to the law courts.  
  • (5) On appeal from this order of transfer, this Chancery order was affirmed by our highest court.  
  • (6) Wemple then started his suit at law and obtained judgment.  
  • (7) On appeal, our highest court sustained this judgment.  

Thus, recently, our citizens were compelled to have seven separate court hearings to obtain justice in a single situation. Wemple v B. F. Goodrich Co., 126 N. J. Eq. 220; 127 N. J. Eq. 333; 126 N. J. L. 465.

Example B:

  • (1) The New York Sash and Door Company sued the National House and Farms Association at law.  
  • (2) On appeal 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.  
  • (3) 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, and the New York Company's motion to dismiss the bill in Chancery was held until final hearing.  
  • (4) After the trial at law had occurred, the New York Company again moved to dismiss the bill in Chancery and this motion was denied.  
  • (5) The New York Company appealed from this decision to our highest court which affirmed the decision in Chancery. The net result of all these proceedings in these two courts was    absolutely nothing   . For, the question still had to be determined in one court   -      
  • (6) Chancery, whether the contract had to be reformed. Thereafter,  
  • (7) In another court, that of common law, the question still had to be determined whether the contract, whether or not reformed in Chancery, had been broken.  

New York Sash and Door Co. v National House and Farms Ass'n., 131 N. J. L. 466, 135 N. J. Eq. 150.

Obviously, instead of our citizens being forced, by our present Constitution, to take seven separate court proceedings in different courts to obtain justice, they should have been able, if the law were made for man, not man for the law, to obtain justice in one court, and at one time.


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