Greischel v. Greischel

• Decision Date: 22 January 1943
• Docket Number: Nos. 207, 208.,s. 207, 208.
• Parties: GREISCHEL v. GREISCHEL.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

29 A.2d 901

133 N.J.Eq. 31

GREISCHEL

v. GREISCHEL.

Nos. 207, 208.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Jan. 22, 1943.

Syllabus by the Court.

The power of the Court of Chancery to grant to a party the privilege of inspection of books, papers or documents relevant to the cause, either under or apart from court rules, is limited to documentary evidence in the possession of a party to the cause.

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Suit for divorce by Mildred Greischel against Charles Greischel. From an order advised by the advisory master, William Surosky and Archie B. Marcus, partners, and Bouchard & Charvet Dyeing & Finishing Company appeal.

Order reversed.

Sam Mendelsohn, of Paterson, for appellant.

Filbert L. Rosenstein, of Paterson, for respondent.

PARKER, Justice.

We gather from the briefs that the main action is for divorce; and it is fairly to be surmised that the proper amount of alimony pendente lite is the basis of the application made to and granted by an advisory master. The order advised by him, and before us on this appeal, directs "that the petitioner herein, with the aid of an accountant, to be selected by her, be and she hereby is given permission to inspect, draw and copy memoranda and figures from the books, papers and documents referring to the business, corporate, directorial and stockholding operations of Bouchard & Charvet Dyeing and Finishing Co., Inc., and the Greischel Securities Corporation, and the records of Surosky, Marcus & Co., in so far as they reflect the books, papers and records aforementioned and in so far as they reflect or evidence any trust agreement made between Charles Greischel and the Greischel Securities Corporation, and in so far as they have in their possession any of the books, papers and records of Bouchard & Charvet Dyeing and Finishing Co., Inc., and the Greischel Securities Corporation, and especially but without limiting the provisions of the foregoing, all such books as aforesaid as reflect the wages, salaries, drawings, commissions, traveling expenses, dividends and earnings of Charles Greischel as well of the entire corporation."

That the petitioner, by taking appropriate court proceedings, may be entitled to the information sought, may be assumed for present purposes without decision; but that the Court of Chancery was without jurisdiction to make the order seems clear. The power to compel discovery in a proper case and by suitable procedure is inherent in that court, though subject to certain limitations. Fuller v. Alexander Hollander & Co., 61 N.J.Eq, 648, 47 A. 646, 88 Am.St.Rep. 456; De-Bevoise v. H. & W. Co., 67 N.J.Eq. 472, 58 A. 91; Phillips v. Interstate Hosiery Mills, 111 N.J.Eq. 432, 162 A. 886. But...