Eaton Axle & Spring Co. v. Breeze Corporations, Inc.

• Decision Date: 17 October 1932
• Docket Number: No. 10.,10.
• Parties: EATON AXLE & SPRING CO. v. BREEZE CORPORATIONS, Inc.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

162 A. 581

EATON AXLE & SPRING CO.

v. BREEZE CORPORATIONS, Inc.

No. 10.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Oct. 17, 1932.

Action by the Eaton Axle & Spring Company against the Breeze Corporations, Inc., wherein an order was entered for an inspection of certain of the pertinent books, papers, and documents of defendant and another, which was disobeyed. Defendant was found in contempt, and it appeals. Affirmed.

Argued May term, 1932, before the CHIEF JUSTICE, and BODINE and DONGES, JJ.

Lionel P. Kristeller, George H. Rosenstein, and Saul J. Zucker, all of Newark, for appellant.

Andrew J. Whinery and Joseph G. Lyons, both of Newark, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

An action was pending in the Essex county circuit court to recover upon a promissory note made by the Cox Corporation. The complaint alleged an assumption by the defendant of the liabilities of the Cox Corporation and a partial performance thereof.

Judge Duncan made an order for an inspection of certain of the pertinent books, papers, and documents of the defendant and the Cox Corporation, pursuant to Pamphlet Laws 1903, p. 576 (3 Comp. St. 1910, p. 4098, § 142). This order was disobeyed, and the defendant was found in contempt by appropriate proceeding, and now appeals from that adjudication.

"The propriety of granting an order for the production and inspection of books and papers rests largely in the sound legal discretion of the trial court, and its discretion in granting or refusing the order will not be disturbed unless abused." 18 Corpus Juris, 1127.

The plaintiff filed a verified petition for inspection of the books of the Cox Corporation and the Breeze Corporations which might show facts material to the cause of action. It was admitted in the pleadings filed that the Breeze Corporations, Inc., had purchased the assets of the Cox Corporation. The petition was brought on for hearing on notice. After due deliberation of matters suggested upon the record by the petition, the affidavit in support thereof and the affidavit in opposition thereto, the order for inspection was properly made. The disobedience of the order upon which the contempt was predicated was established before the court in the usual manner.

"in most jurisdictions the statutes provide for the obtaining and inspection of books and papers of the adverse party. These statutes were enacted with the view of providing a more speedy and less expensive remedy than by proceedings in chancery, and are constitutional. They are...