Credit Bureau Collection Agency v. Lind

• Decision Date: 17 November 1961
• Docket Number: No. A--651,A--651
• Citation: Credit Bureau Collection Agency v. Lind, 71 N.J.Super. 326, 177 A.2d 36 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1961)
• Parties: CREDIT BUREAU COLLECTION AGENCY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harry LIND et al., Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 326

71 N.J.Super. 326

177 A.2d 36

CREDIT BUREAU COLLECTION AGENCY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.Harry LIND et al., Defendants-Respondents.

No. A--651.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued Nov. 6, 1961.

Decided Nov. 17, 1961.

Robert L. Messick, Camden, for plaintiff-appellant(Bleakly, Stockwell & Zink, Camden, attorneys).

No appearance for defendants-respondents.

Before Judges CONFORD, FREUND and LABRECQUE.

PER CURIAM.

This was an action in the Camden County Court brought for the return of moneys advanced to an insurance agent allegedly in excess of the commissions actually earned by the agent.The case was tried before a judge sitting without a jury.The basic facts were stipulated and the only issue involved was the construction of writings evidencing the contractual arrangements between the parties.At the termination of the trial, the court, after a short exposition of its factual and legal conclusions, announced its ruling as 'no cause of action in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff.'No written judgment was ever drawn, signed or filed.Nor was any notation or memorandum of judgment ever entered on the civil docket.See R.R. 4:59.

Subsequently a motion was filed by the plaintiff'to reopen the judgment.'Upon hearing, the trial judge denied the motion, but no order effectuating the oral announcement of the decision on the motion was filed.Thereafter a notice of appeal was filed which recites that it is taken from 'the whole of the final judgment entered by the Camden County Court * * *' and from 'the denial of' the motion to reopen.

There being no appearance or brief on behalf of defendant in this courtwe on our own motion raised the question as to the absence of a judgment of record to afford a jurisdictional basis for entertainment of the appeal.Plaintiff was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in support of jurisdiction, and we have considered it.

In Homeowner's, etc., Inc. v. So. Plainfield Sewerage Auth., 60 N.J.Super. 321, 158 A.2d 847(App.Div.1960), we dismissed an appeal from an oral statement of dismissal of a prerogative writ action where no judgment was ever entered.We there held that unless otherwise specially provided by rule the rules of practice contemplated the entry of a written judgment or order after settlement of its form upon notice pursuant to R.R. 4:55--1.And see cases cited at 60 N.J.Super., at p. 323, 158 A.2d 847.

The present appellate seeks to distinguish the Homeowner's case on the ground that there no stenographic transcript of the proceedings was made, whereas here there was.This observation does not reach the rational basis of the requirement.It is essential that somewhere in or on the official docket of the record, where all concerned with or affected by the determination, presently or in the future, may find it, there be entered an unequivocal and definitive statement of the judgment terms, i.e., parties, damages or other relief awarded, or the denial thereof, and costs, if any.It has long and invariably been recognized, in particular, that no appeal lies...