Jaeger v. Naef

• Decision Date: 24 February 1934
• Docket Number: No. 7.,7.
• Citation: 171 A. 166
• Parties: JAEGER v. NAEF.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

171 A. 166

JAEGER

v. NAEF.

No. 7.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 24, 1934.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Essex County.

Action by Adolph W. Jaeger against Albert Naef. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed.

Argued October term, 1933, before BROGAN, C. J., and TRENCHARD and HEHER, JJ.

J. Thaddeus Rospond, of Newark, for appellant.

Meyer M. Semel, of Newark, for respondent.

HEHER, Justice.

Plaintiff seeks the recovery of moneys claimed to have been advanced by him to defendant for the purchase of capital stock of a corporation in which they were stockholders. The complaint is in two counts. The first alleges that "defendant at plaintiff's re quest, advanced and paid the sum of $400 to Mrs. Barbara Walter, for three shares of stock of the Irvington Sand Co., Inc.," and that these shares "were issued to defendant and retained by him." The second count avers that "plaintiff loaned to defendant $400, to be repaid on demand," and that defendant refused to repay said sum, although demand therefor was made. Defendant interposed an answer, wherein he made a general denial of the allegations of the complaint, and in separate defenses denied that the money in question was advanced by plaintiff at his request, and that the stock was purchased on his account.

Plaintiff thereupon served notice of a motion to strike out the answer upon the ground "that it is sham, irregular and frivolous," Defendant countered with a motion for leave to file an amended answer and to strike out the first count of the complaint on the ground that "it discloses no cause of action against the defendant." These motions were heard upon affidavits, and an order was entered reciting that "there is no merit to the complaint under the facts as disclosed, and that the complaint does not disclose a cause of action," and directing that it he stricken out and judgment of nonsuit entered.

We are of opinion that, in the making of this order, the court below fell into error. The complaint clearly disclosed a cause of action. Assuming, without deciding, that the first count is defective, in that it alleges that the moneys were advanced by defendant at plaintiffs request (other allegations of the complaint show that this was an inadvertent transposition of terms), and that defendant, by making answer, did not waive his right to challenge the sufficiency of the complaint, the second count is clearly good, and the complaint was therefore improperly stricken on the ground that it did not disclose a cause of action.

The order in question cannot be justified on the ground that "there is no merit to the complaint under the facts as disclosed." The proofs were sharply in conflict. Plaintiff, in his own affidavit, states that he and defendant agreed to purchase six shares of the capital stock of the sand company, held by Mrs. Walter, for the sum of $800; that these shares were to be divided equally between them, and that each was to pay one-half of the consideration price; that defendant requested plaintiff to advance his share of the consideration price, as he was not then in funds, and that plaintiff agreed; and that the full consideration price was paid by plaintiff, and the stock equally apportioned between them. It is conceded that a certificate for three shares, issued to defendant, was delivered to him, and that he subsequently sold them with other stock holdings in the corporation. Defendant, in his affidavit, denies that plaintiff paid the consideration price for the stock, and that he had agreed to purchase the shares subsequently assigned to him. Furthermore, he relies upon a release given by the sand company to him, when he disposed of his stock holdings in the corporation, which stated, inter alia, that it was "expressly given as a receipt for the sale by us to him of any material and supplies purchased by him; and also to release him from and in full satisfaction and payment of all shares of capital stock of the Irvington Sand Co., Inc., which he now holds in his possession." The release does not purport to cover plaintiff's claim, nor could it bar this action, for he was not a party to the contract.

Defendant maintains that, inasmuch as the certificate for the shares in question was issued to him by the sand company, the pleaded cause of action is barred by the release. He so affirms in his affidavit. But this is obviously a non sequitur. If it is based upon the theory that the purchase of the stock was made for the corporation, with its moneys, an issue of fact is presented. Plaintiff stated,...