Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kuzma v. Millinery Workers Union Local No. 24

Decided: August 18, 1952.

ANNA KUZMA AND WILLIAM KUZMA, HER HUSBAND, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
MILLINERY WORKERS UNION LOCAL NO. 24, ABRAHAM MANDELLOWITZ, MORRIS HACKER AND ISADORE HERMAN, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS



Smalley, Proctor and Haneman.

Per Curiam

[21 NJSuper Page 166] Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the trial court striking parts of the complaint relating to certain items

of damage. At the oral argument we expressed the opinion that the order under review being interlocutory, the appeal was premature and should be dismissed. Rule 4:2-2. At request of plaintiffs' counsel permission was granted to file supplemental briefs on the above question.

In plaintiffs' supplemental brief it is conceded that the appeal is from an interlocutory order and does not come within the exceptions to the above rule. However, plaintiffs urge that, pursuant to Rule 4:1-10, in the interest of justice Rule 4:2-2 be relaxed and cite Scott v. Stewart , 2 N.J. 508 (1949) and Eilen v. Tappin's, Inc. , 14 N.J. Super. 162 (App. Div. 1951).

The cited cases are not applicable. In the Scott case the adjudication of the Supreme Court, in effect, terminated the litigation. In the Eilen case the trial court's order of inspection was so broad that a strict adherence thereto would have worked an injustice to the defendant. In the present case we find no justification for a departure from Rule 4:2-2.

Appeal dismissed.

19520818 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.