Ferraiuolo v. Manno
Decision Date | 15 November 1948 |
Citation | 62 A.2d 141,1 N.J. 105 |
Docket Number | A-24 |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Parties | ANTHONY FERRAIUOLO AND PHILIP FOTI, COMPLAINANTS-RESPONDENTS, v. BENJAMIN MANNO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Former Court of Chancery.
Suit by Anthony Ferraiuolo and another against Benjamin Manno. From an order granting a preliminary injunction restraining defendant from interfering with business of complainants, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Harry Kay, of Newark, for appellant.
Mario Turtur, of Elizabeth, for respondents.
This is an appeal from an order granting a preliminary injunction based upon the bill, answer and the affidavits of the respective parties.
Defendant is restrained pendente lite from interfering with the business of the complainant, Anthony Ferraiuolo, or his use and enjoyment of the front portion of the store where said business, a vegetable market, was being conducted at 554 Orange Street, Newark, New Jersey, under lease from the defendant. Incidentally, the defendant is required to remove the fixtures, goods and chattels placed by him in the leased premises.
Defendant argues, as grounds for reversal, that there is an adequate remedy at law; that the material facts relied upon to support complainants' claim for relief are denied under oath, and, therefore, preliminary restraint should have been denied, and that the court had no authority in limine to allow such interlocutory injunctive relief.
The complaint and its supporting affidavits exhibit the lease hereinabove referred to, showing a term of five years from November 1, 1946, with an option of renewal for five additional years, and also a bill of sale from the defendant (landlord) to the complainant, Anthony Ferraiuolo, for a vegetable display stand, frosted food box and window display stands then on the leased premises. The complainant, Philip Foti, was later admitted as a partner in the vegetable business by Ferraiuolo. Complainants' affidavits assert that on Saturday, July 10, 1948, after their store had been closed for the day, the defendant entered and removed the fixtures therefrom and replaced them with certain of his own. The next day the complainants put their own fixtures back. Thereupon the defendant repeated his previous performance and reinstalled his fixtures. These assertions are not denied by the defendant. The complainants' affidavits further state that following the last mentioned episode the defendant put a new lock on the store door and refused permission to the complainants to enter and do business in the leased premises. It is then averred that the complainants have built up a valuable good-will, are under obligations to various firms doing business with them, and have made a bona fide attempt to locate their business elsewhere without success. It is further asserted that complainants have suffered and will suffer loss of good-will, loss through inability to secure business to carry out the aforementioned contractual obligations, and consequent exposure to law suits, as well as the total destruction of their business, good-will and profits.
The circumstances thus exhibited by the moving papers show a potential irreparable injury, not adequately compensable in damages, which is a well recognized ground for equitable intervention by preliminary injunction. As was said in Scherman v. Stern, Err. & App.1922, 93 N.J.Eq. 626, at page 631, 117 A. 631, 633: ‘Acts destroying a complainant's business, custom, and profits do an irreparable injury and authorize the issue of a preliminary injunction.’ Vide Ideal Laundry Co. v. Gugliemone, Err. & App.1930, 107 N.J.Eq. 108, 110, 151 A. 617; Christiansen v. Local 680 of Milk Drivers, etc., Err. & App.1939, 127 N.J.Eq. 215, 219, et seq., 12 A.2d 170; McGann v. La Brecque Co., Err. & App.1919, 91 N.J.Eq. 307, 109 A. 501; Public Service Corp. v. Westfield, Ch.1913, 82 N.J.Eq. 43, 45, 91 A. 738, affirmed 82 N.J.Eq. 662, 91 A. 740; Friedlander v. Grand, Err. & App.1934, 116 N.J.Eq. 537, 174 A. 506. In the case last cited injunctive relief was denied but only because the tenant had failed to show that there were ‘no other stores in the neighborhood available or that he cannot move his business to another store without serious loss.’ In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crowe v. De Gioia
...showing made before the trial court, a reasonable basis existed to permit Crowe to remain in the Perth Amboy home. See Ferraiuolo v. Manno, 1 N.J. 105, 62 A.2d 141 (1948) (landlord temporarily restrained from interfering with tenant's business on leased premises); Marjer v. Layfmen, 140 N.J......
-
Board of Ed., Borough of Union Beach v. New Jersey Ed. Ass'n
...affirmed sub nom. Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. United Electrical, &c., 139 N.J.Eq. 97, 49 A.2d 896 (E. & A. 1946); Ferraiuolo v. Manno, 1 N.J. 105, 108, 62 A.2d 141 (1948). The law as to the granting of injunctions, as set forth in 4 Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, § 1338, pp. 935--936 'I......
-
Silverstein v. Abco Vending Service
...of the remedy of injunction to restrain acts "destroying a complainant's business, custom, and profits." Ferraiuolo v. Manno, 1 N.J. 105, 108, 62 A.2d 141, 142 (1948). See the collection of authorities exemplifying the application of both legal and equitable remedies for redress of wrongful......
-
Gantt v. Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina
...must be no disputed issues of fact. Citizens Coach Co. v. Camden Horse R. R. Co., E. & A. 1878, 29 N.J.Eq. 299, 306; Ferraiuolo v. Manno, 1948, 1 N.J. 105, 108, 62 A.2d 141; Anders v. Greenlands Corp., Ch. 1954, 31 N.J.Super. 329, 339, 106 A.2d 361." Charles Simkin & Sons, Inc. v. Massiah, ......