536 Broad Street Corporation v. Valco Mortgage Company

• Decision Date: 28 April 1943
• Citation: 32 A.2d 179,133 N.J.Eq. 240
• Docket Number: 139/547
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery
• Parties: 536 BROAD STREET CORPORATION, complainant, v. VALCO MORTGAGE COMPANY et al., defendants

32 A.2d 179

536 BROAD STREET CORPORATION

v.VALCO MORTGAGE CO. et al.

139/547.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

April 28, 1943.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

Suit in equity by the 536 Broad Street Corporation against the Valco Mortgage Company and others.On defendants' petition to vacate an order referring the cause to a Vice Chancellor, strike the bill of complaint, require complainant to show cause why such relief should not be granted, grant petitioners' permission to take depositions, and restrain complainant and its officers, directors, stockholders, attorneys and agents from further prosecuting the suit.

Petition denied.

CHANCELLOR.

For a proper understanding of this application and my reasons for denying it, it is necessary to give a brief recital from the records.

The bill was filed March 4, 1942; answer July 7, 1942; replication, etc., July 15, 1942.

A consented order of reference was entered July 23, 1942, under which the cause was referred to Vice Chancellor Kays and all proceedings from thence forward were had before him.

On September 1, 1942, by consent a date for final hearing was designated as November 24, 1942.

Thereafter, upon requests of the defendants, there were adjournments of the date of hearing to December 16, 1942; January 12, 1943; January 27, 1943; February 9, 1943; March 9, 1943.

This last adjourned date of March 9, 1943, seems to have been peremptorily fixed by the Vice Chancellor.At any rate the hearing commenced and proceeded on that day.

On the morning of March 8, 1943, the solicitor for the petitioners presented to me the petition in question, the voluminousness and nature of which can only be known and appreciated by a reference to and a reading of it as it appears in the files of the Court.

The prayers of the petition are that:

‘1.The order of reference heretofore entered in this cause be vacated.

‘2.That notwithstanding the answer filed herein, that your Honor strike the bill of complaint for the reasons:

‘(a) That it does not plead the alleged fraud and breach of trust as required by the aforesaid rules of this Court;

‘(b) That it does not disclose a cause of action of which your Honor will take jurisdiction in that on its face it shows complainant is in laches without explanation or excuse thereof or therefor;

‘(c) Because it is an instrumentality of blackmail and because those controlling complainant had knowledge that Fred M. Barnet could refute all charges in the bill of complaint and because they refused to permit your petitioner, John Warren to see the said Fred M. Barnet, or know his whereabouts and because he is now dead, and because your petitioners have lost records necessary for their defense to the charges set forth in the bill of complaint, the cause of action set forth in the bill of complaint is not such that the conscience of your Honor will permit you to entertain the same; and

‘(d) Because of the control of this litigation and of the processes of justice in this Court by the said Frank Hague and his Organization, that the conscience of your Honor will not permit the further prosecution of this alleged cause of action.

‘3.That an order may be made requiring the complainant to show cause why the foregoing relief should not be granted and that the said order contain permission for your petitioners to take depositions in support of the allegations of paragraphs 39, 41, 43, 61, 62 and 65 herein, which said depositions shall be read upon the return of said order, together with the affidavits hereunto annexed and such answering affidavits as may be proper.

‘4.That the complainant, its officers, directors, stockholders, attorneys and agents, be restrained until the further order of this Court from further prosecuting the alleged cause of action herein.

‘5.That your petitioners may have such other and further relief as the circumstances of the case may warrant and as may be agreeable to equity and good conscience.’

I will consider and dispose of them in their order:

1.A vacation of the order of reference to Vice Chancellor Kays.

The effort and purpose seems to be to disqualify the Vice Chancellor and for that matter, the entire personnel of the Court.

It is alleged in paragraph 38: ‘The political influence of the said Hague upon the jurists of this Court is so well and commonly known that it was referred to by His Excellency, Charles Edison, Governor of the State of New...