Dolan Dining Co., Inc. v. Cooks' and Assistants' Union, Local No. 399, A. F. of L.
| Decision Date | 10 October 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 203.,203. |
| Citation | 128 N.J.Eq. 210,15 A.2d 453 |
| Parties | DOLAN DINING CO., Inc. v. COOKS' AND ASSISTANTS' UNION, LOCAL NO. 399, A. F. of L., et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Suit by the Dolan Dining Company, Incorporated, against the Cooks' and Assistants' Union, Local No. 399, A. F. of L., and others, to enjoin picketing, wherein the defendants moved that the court refuse to proceed with final hearing and dismiss the bill on ground that the issues had become moot. From a decree dismissing bill and advising costs and counsel fee to complainant, 126 N.J.Eq. 445, 9 A.2d 303, the defendants appeal.
Reversed.
Solomon Golat and David R. Hochberg, both of Newark, for defendants-appellants.
Samuel H. Nelson, of Newark, for complainant-respondent.
This appeal is from a decree advised by the Vice Chancellor to whom the case was referred, awarding costs and counsel fee to complainant-respondent. The contention is that no determinative hearing took place on issues which were controverted and hence there could not be a basis upon which to predicate such an award.
In the bill of complaint respondent sought in substance to enjoin defendants-appellants from picketing the business of respondent. A preliminary injunction was granted. The order for the injunction was reversed by this Court on the ground that there was a dispute of facts which, under firmly established precedent, debarred the granting of injunctive relief in such a posture. On the day fixed for final hearing, the defendants-appellants requested leave to file an amended answer to set forth that subsequent to issuance of the injunction, all questions of difference between the parties had been concluded, resulting in the elimination of any issue and rendering the subject of the hearing moot. Complainant-respondent asked for costs and counsel fee because of the expense involved in preparing the case. Appellants resisted this, stating they also had been subjected to expense in similar manner and were ready to proceed with the hearing if necessary. The learned Vice Chancellor determined there was no occasion for a hearing, since there was nothing to decide, and he dismissed the bill without a hearing. He concluded also that the bill had stated a good cause of action which had not been challenged by motion to strike, and that assuming the facts to have been as alleged in the bill, the complainant was not to be deprived of costs if prior to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Jersey State Bar Ass'n v. Northern New Jersey Mortg. Associates
...there was no final determination and injunction against them no costs should be taxed. Unlike Dolan Dining Co., Inc. v. Cooks', etc., Local No. 399, 128 N.J.Eq. 210, 15 A.2d 453 (E. & A.1940), the evidence introduced here disclosed that there was ample cause for the State Bar Association's ......
-
Willis v. Dyer
...S. Pipe, etc. v. United Steelworkers of America, 37 N.J. 343, 355-356, 181 A.2d 353 (1962); Dolan Dining Co., Inc. v. Cooks', etc., Local No. 399, 128 N.J.Eq. 210, 212, 15 A.2d 453 (E. & A.1940). We have considered the contentions of the parties other than those discussed in this opinion, a......
-
Cintas v. American Car & Foundry Co.
...New-Ark Petroleum Corp., 111 N.J.Eq. 451, 453, 162 A. 746; Barr v. Belmar, 118 N.J.Eq. 279, 179 A. 31; Dolan Dining Co. v. Cooks', etc., Local No. 399, 128 N.J.Eq. 210, 212, 15 A.2d 453. How then is it to be determined whether an allowance to counsel in a given case is or is not the result ......