Haines v. Burlington County Bridge Commission, A--42
| Decision Date | 21 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. A--42,A--42 |
| Citation | 8 N.J. 539,86 A.2d 236 |
| Parties | HAINES et al. v. BURLINGTON COUNTY BRIDGE COMMISSION et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Milton M. Unger, Newark, for appellants Tuthill Ketcham and others (Milton M. & Adrian M. Unger, Newark, attorneys), and for appellants Burlington County Bridge Commission and others (Robert L. Hood, Newark, and Thomas D. Begley, Burlington, attorneys).
Milton B. Conford, Newark, for respondents (James M. Davis, Jr., Mount Holly, & John A. Matthews, Newark, attorneys).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This appeal is before us following the granting of the defendants' petition for certification to review a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court affirming an award of counsel fees made to the plaintiffs by the Chancery Division of that court.
On October 26, 1948 the plaintiffs as taxpayers instituted this action in the Law Division of the Superior Court against the Burlington County Bridge Commission, the Burlington County Board of Chosen Freeholders, and the respective members of these two bodies for the purpose of setting aside the purchase by the Bridge Commission of the Burlington-Bristol and Tacony-Palmyra bridges from the Burlington-Bristol Bridge Company. The plaintiff's complaint was subsequently amended to include as defendants and secure a judgment for money damages against the stockholders of the Burlington-Bristol Bridge Company. On the commencement of the action temporary restraints were imposed on the defendants and a receiver was appointed to take possession of and operate the bridges. On appeal from this interlocutory order the Appellate Division of the Superior Court continued the restraints but vacated the appointment of the receiver, Haines v. Burlington County Bridge Commission, 1 N.J.Super. 163, 63 A.2d 284 (App.Div.1949).
In the meantime another action to set aside the purchase of the bridges had been instituted in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court by the Governor and Attorney-General. On the application of the plaintiffs in that case the Appellate Division ordered the two actions consolidated for trial in the Chancery Division. Before the cases came on for trial the plaintiffs in both actions presented to the court an order providing for an immediate dismissal of the action commenced by Haines and Lippincott and for the award of fees to their counsel out of funds of the bridge commission. This order the court declined to sign; instead it entered an order which, among other things, stayed all proceedings in the action instituted by Haines and Lippincott pending the determination of the action brought by the Governor and Attorney-General and reserved decision on the application for counsel fees. In due course the action prosecuted by the Governor and Attorney-General was decided and subsequently on December 29, 1950 an order was entered dismissing the Haines and Lippincott action and allowing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Al Walker, Inc. v. Borough of Stanhope
...Haines v. Burlington County Bridge Commission, 1 N.J.Super. 163, 170, 63 A.2d 284 (App.Div.1949); Haines v. Burlington County Bridge Commission, 8 N.J. 539, 86 A.2d 236 (1952); see Driscoll v. Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co., 8 N.J. 433, 86 A.2d 201 (1952) certiorari denied, 344 U.S. 838, 73 ......
-
State v. Otis Elevator Co.
...v. Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co., supra; In re Koretzky's Estate, 8 N.J. 506, 86 A.2d 238 (1951); Haines v. Burlington County Bridge Commission, 8 N.J. 539, 86 A.2d 236 (1952); Janovsky v. American Motorists Insurance Co., 11 N.J. 1, 93 A.2d 1, 4 (1952). None of these cases, however, is imm......
-
Driscoll v. Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co.
... ... [86 A.2d 207] Robert L. Hood, Newark, for appellants Burlington County Bridge Commission, Howard R. Yocum, Daniel Lichtenthal, and Fred C. Norcross, Jr., individually and ... Haines and Richard Lippincott, opposition candidates for freeholder in the election then in the offing, ... ...
-
Grober v. Kahn
...is not itself enough to demonstrate the existence of a 'fund in court' within the purpose of the rule. Haines v. Burlington County Bridge Comm., 8 N.J. 539, 542, (86 A.2d 236) (1952). In general, allowances are payable from a 'fund' when it would be unfair to saddle the full cost upon the l......