Ajamian v. Schlanger

Decision Date15 February 1954
Docket NumberNo. A--72,A--72
Citation14 N.J. 483,103 A.2d 9
PartiesAJAMIAN v. SCHLANGER et al.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Isadore Glauberman, Jersey City, argued the cause for appellants.

Aaron Ajamian, respondent, argued the cause Pro se.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, Jr., J.

Notable among the reforms introduced by the Judicial Article of the 1947 Constitution and the implementing rules of court is the fusion of the powers of Law and Chancery in one Superior Court functioning within a simple and flexible procedural framework designed and purposed for the just and expeditious determination in a single action of the ultimate merits of an entire controversy between litigants. It is a fundamental objective of this procedural reform to avoid the delays and wasteful expense of the multiplicity of litigation which results from the splitting of a controversy. Massari v. Einsiedler, 6 N.J. 303, 78 A.2d 572 (1951); In re McFeely's Estate, 8 N.J. 9, 83 A.2d 524 (1951); Tumarkin v. Friedman, 17 N.J.Super. 20, 85 A.2d 304 (App.Div. 1951), certification denied 9 N.J. 287, 88 A.2d 39 (1952).

The policy of the new practice contemplates that the Superior Court litigant not only should initially plead any legal and equitable claims or defenses, whether or not consistent, supporting his position in the controversy and seek all legal or equitable remedies which he may desire, but also, with the aid of the broad discovery and pretrial procedures by which he may obtain all the facts material to the positions of both sides, that he should avail himself of the liberality allowed to form and reform his pleadings and the pretrial order accordingly, the opportunities for such amendment being restricted, in any substantial degree, only by R.R. 4:29--1(15) and 4:15--2 applicable to amendments offered after the entry of the pretrial order, or during trial.

The instant appeal involves a question concerning the alternative and inconsistent rights and remedies available to an allegedly defrauded purchaser of a business to disaffirm and rescind the transaction or to affirm and recover damages for the deceit. 5 Williston, Contracts, Sec. 1528; Restatement, Contracts, sec. 381, com. (d).; 18 Am.Jur., Election of Remedies, sec. 18, p. 141.

The purchaser, Harry M. Ajamian, bought an embroidery business from the defendants in June 1946. Within a month after taking possession he became aware of the allegedly fraudulent nature of representations allegedly made by the defendants to induce him to make the purchase. Nevertheless, he continued until March 1947 to deal with the property and to make instalment payments of the purchase price. On March 3, 1947, he filed a bill of complaint for rescission in the former Court of Chancery. The case was not moved, however, for almost three years, and on February 17, 1950, when it came on for pretrial conference, had been pending in the Superior Court for 17 months after its automatic transfer to that court on September 15, 1948 pursuant to Article XI, sec. 4, para. 8(e) of the Schedule to the 1947 Constitution. The rules of court also became effective on September 15, 1948, and the plaintiff does not suggest that the purchaser, at least by the time he moved the case, had any excuse on the ground of novelty of the practice or otherwise which relieved him of the necessity of prosecuting the action according to the rules.

At the pretrial conference the defendants requested and were granted leave to amend their answer affirmatively to plead the defense of laches and estoppel 'by reason of his (the purchaser's) conduct in the premises' and those issues were included among the ones listed in the pretrial order for disposition at the trial. However valid the purchaser's reasons for not earlier offering an amendment to ask legal damages for deceit, at least alternatively with the remedy of rescission, certainly it was highly imprudent not to offer such an amendment after this forewarning of the defendants' position, particularly as the purchaser among all parties concerned was best informed as to his acts of conduct upon which the defenses were based. But he made no attempt to amend, then or during the three months which elapsed before trial, and went to trial pursuing the remedy of rescission only. His proofs were heard, and, as he might well have anticipated, his own testimony supplied the facts which substantiated the defense that he had ratified the contract before bringing suit and was thus not entitled to rescind. Defendants' counsel accordingly moved for judgment at the close of his proofs and the trial judge, without determining the merits of the fraud charge (defendants' witnesses were present in court, but the disposition made rendered their testimony unnecessary), granted the motion. Even after the trial judge's oral decision from the bench had made his plight clear the purchaser offered no amendment although an opportunity to amend at that stage might readily have been allowed subject to the limitations of former Rule 3:15--2, now R.R. 4:15--2. Instead he appealed to the Appellate Division from the judgment. Oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 26, 1952.

Before the decision of the Appellate Division, which affirmed the judgment, was filed on July 1, 1952, Ajamian v. Schlanger, 20 N.J.Super. 246, 89 A.2d 702 (1952), the purchaser assigned his claim to plaintiff here, his brother, Aaron Ajamian, a member of the New York bar, who on June 12, 1952 commenced a new action in the Law Division of the Superior Court by filing a complaint making allegations virtually identical with the allegations in the bill of complaint for rescission, but asking damages for the alleged deceit. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of the prior determination in the rescission suit, but the motion was denied. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, one judge dissenting, 29 N.J.Super. 497, 103 A.2d 3 (1953). This appeal is therefore here under former Rule 1:2--1(b), now R.R. 1:2--1(b).

Under the former practice, a Chancery judgment adverse to the complainant, resting not upon an adverse determination of the fraud charge making applicable the principles of Res adjudicata, cf. Simon & Diamond Coal & Lumber Co. v. Belz, 107 N.Y.L. 193, 151 A. 784 (E. & A.1930), or upon other matter raising an estoppel, but, as here, upon a finding of the unavailability of the rescission remedy by reason of the complainant's ratification of the contract before bringing suit, would probably not have barred the subsequent action at law for damages for the deceit. Stambovsky v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
80 cases
  • Prevratil v. Mohr
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 10 Julio 1996
    ...a later action that could have been asserted as a defense in the earlier one. 6 N.J. at 311-12, 78 A.2d 572. The Court in Ajamian v. Schlanger, 14 N.J. 483, 103 A.2d 9, cert. denied, 348 U.S. 835, 75 S.Ct. 58, 99 L.Ed. 659 (1954), extended the doctrine by precluding such proceedings by the ......
  • Burrell v. Quaranta
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 4 Septiembre 1992
    ...105 N.J. at 472, 523 A.2d 131; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Gilchrist Brothers, Inc., 85 N.J. 550, 556, 428 A.2d 1254 (1981); Ajamian v. Schlanger, 14 N.J. 483, 485, 103 A.2d 9 (1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 835, 75 S.Ct. 58, 99 L.Ed. 659 (1954); Massari v. Einsiedler, 6 N.J. 303, 307, 78 A.2d 572 (19......
  • Aetna Ins. Co. v. Gilchrist Bros., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 7 Abril 1981
    ...2 Several decisions of this Court have advocated that proposition. The leading opinion is that of Justice Brennan in Ajamian v. Schlanger, 14 N.J. 483, 103 A.2d 9 (1954), cert. den. 348 U.S. 835, 75 S.Ct. 58, 99 L.Ed. 659 (1954). The plaintiff's assignor had unsuccessfully sought rescission......
  • Jersey City v. Hague, A--137
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 13 Junio 1955
    ...such party's position, are substantially known.' (12 N.J.Super. at page 562, 80 A.2d at page 139.) And in Ajamian v. Schlanger, 14 N.J. 483, at page 490, 103 A.2d 9, at page 12 (1954), this court 'Indeed, unless equities in favor of other parties intervene, his final choice of remedy under ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT