Arrow Builders Supply Corp. v. Hudson Terrace Apartments
| Decision Date | 21 June 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. M--167,M--167 |
| Citation | 106 A.2d 271,16 N.J. 47 |
| Parties | ARROW BUILDERS SUPPLY CORP. v. HUDSON TERRACE APARTMENTS, Inc. BERGEN BLDG. BLOCK, Inc. v. HUDSON TERRACE APARTMENTS, Inc. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Aaron Heller, Passaic (Heller & Laiks, Passaic, attorneys), for the rehearing.
Harry Phillipson, Newark, and Frank G. Alster, Hackensack, in opposition.
The opinion of the court was delivered.
In this matter the court recently filed its opinion expressly overruling Mills Co. v. Hegeman-Harris Co., 94 N.J.Eq. 802, 122 A. 926, 125 A. 127 (E. & A. 1923). See 15 N.J. 418, 105 A.2d 387 (1954). The respondent, by petition for rehearing, seeks a determination that the overruling is to have prospective rather that retrospective application.
Our courts have adhered to the prevailing common-law doctrine that the overruling of a judicial decision is retrospective in nature. See Fox v. Snow, 6 N.J. 12, 14, 76 A.2d 877 (1950); Ross v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County, 90 N.J.L. 522, 527, 102 A. 397 (E. & A.1917). However, in the well-known companion cases of Montana Horse Products Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 91 Mont. 194, 7 P.2d 919 (1932), and Sunburst Oil & Refining Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 91 Mont. 216, 7 P.2d 927 (1932), the Montana Supreme Court allowed recovery on the basis of an earlier decision which it then proceeded to overrule prospectively; and on Certiorari the United States Supreme Court in an opinion delivered by Justice Cardozo held that this action did not violate any provision of the Federal Constitution. See Great Northern R. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Ref. Co., 287 U.S. 358, 53 S.Ct. 145, 77 L.Ed. 360 (1932). Since then there has been much written on the issue of whether the overruling of a prior decision upon which the litigant has guided his conduct should not justly be confined to future transactions. Cf. Note, The Effect of Overruled and Overruling Decisions on Intervening Transactions, 47 Harv.L.Rev. 1403 (1934) with 'Stare Decisis-The Montana Doctrine,' 13 Mont.L.Rev. 74 (1952). See von Moschzisker, 'Stare Decisis in Courts of Last Resort,' 37 Harv.L.Rev. 409, 426 (1924); Justice Cardozo in Hall Selected Writings of Benjamin Nathan Cardozo, [106 A.2d 272] p. 36 (1947). However we need not concern ourselves with the conflicting social and individual considerations which have been advanced since we are satisfied that the respondent is in no position to assert reliance on the overruled decision.
In 1934 the Court of Errors and Appeals in St. Michael's Orphan Asylum and Industrial School of Hopewell v. Conneen Const. Co., 114 N.J.Eq. 276, 166 A. 458 (Ch.1933), affirmed 115 N.J.Eq. 334, 170 A. 649 (E. & A.1934), largely nullified the decision in Hegeman-Harris. After Conneen was decided no one could reasonably assert that Hegeman-Harris remained wholly unimpaired. Indeed, in Noland Co., Inc., v. Chelsea Housing Corp., 64 N.J.L.J. 469 (1941), United States District Court Judge Avis took the position that Hegeman-Harris had been overruled by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coons v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
...v. Harvey, 41 N.J. 277, 286, 196 A.2d 513 (1963) (no evidence of actual reliance by defendant); Arrow Builders Supply Corp. v. Hudson Terrace Apts., 16 N.J. 47, 50, 106 A.2d 271 (1954) (record contained nothing to suggest party actually relied upon old rule). I would require actual reliance......
-
White v. North Bergen Tp.
...out in Arrow Builders Supply Corp. v. Hudson Terrace Apts., Inc., 15 N.J. 418, 426, 105 A.2d 387 (1954), rehearing denied 16 N.J. 47, 106 A.2d 271 (1954), the principle is not an absolute one and under cogent circumstances it must give way to the overriding force which dictates that, since ......
-
Breen v. Peck
...Cf. Arrow Builders Supply Corp. v. Hudson Terrace Apts., Inc., 15 N.J. 418, 105 A.2d 387 (1954), petition for rehearing denied 16 N.J. 47, 106 A.2d 271 (1954). A wrongdoer who never made any payment and merely stood by while his co-wrongdoer made a partial payment in settlement and obtained......
-
Darrow v. Hanover Tp.
...Northern Railway Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 U.S. 358, 53 S.Ct. 145, 77 L.Ed. 360 (1932); Arrow Builders Supply Corp. v. Hudson Terrace Apts., 16 N.J. 47, 106 A.2d 271 (1954); Cf. In re Thompson, 53 N.J. 276, 298--299, 250 A.2d 393 (1969); Dalton v. St. Luke's Catholic Church, 2......