Jersey City Welding & Mach. Works, Inc. v. Hudson County White Co.
| Decision Date | 27 September 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 100.,100. |
| Citation | 174 A. 516 |
| Parties | JERSEY CITY WELDING & MACHINE WORKS, Inc. v. HUDSON COUNTY WHITE CO. et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A receiver must ordinarily resort to the remedies provided by law and not summary proceedings in the court of his appointment.
2. An objection, because of an absolute lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter of an action, may be taken advantage of at any stage of the proceeding.
3. If the court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the proceeding, an objection to the form must be taken in limine.
4. The Court of Chancery, the facts examined, may not order the return of $2,500 deposited to secure the performance of the lease in question.
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Suit by the Jersey City Welding & Machine Works, Incorporated, against the Hudson County White Company, wherein receiver was appointed for defendant. From an order entered in a summary proceeding in the receivership cause against the Morgan Realty Company, the Morgan Realty Company appeals.
Reversed.
Marshall Van Winkle, of Jersey City, for appellant.
Harry Tartalsky, of Jersey City, for receiver.
The Morgan Realty Company appeals from an order of the Court of Chancery directing it to pay to the receiver of the defendant company the sum of $2,500. The order was entered in a summary proceeding in a receivership cause. The realty company was not a defendant in the receivership proceeding. The moneys, which it was directed to return, were paid upon the execution of a lease of really. The lease was made with the insolvent defendant. The lease provides as follows: "As security and to partly secure a portion of the rental of the leased premises, the lessee shall pay to the lessor Twenty-five hundred ($2500) dollars, upon the signing of this lease, and an additional Twenty-five hundred ($2500) dollars, on May 1, 1934, which total sum of Five thousand ($5000) dollars, shall be credited as rent at the end of the term of this lease, provided it runs for the full term of eight years, otherwise said sum shall be retained by the lessor as and for liquidated damages and the lessee hereby waives all claim or right to said sum or any part thereto."
A receiver must ordinarily resort to the remedies provided by law. He may not, in a summary manner, proceed in the court of his appointment. Grobholz v. Merdel Mortgage Investment Co., 115 N. J. Eq. 411, 170 A. 815. However, the appellant did not object to the jurisdiction of chancery to make the order appealed from. An objection, because of an absolute lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the action may be taken advantage of at any stage of the proceeding. Collins v. Keller, 58 N. J. Law, 429, 34 A. 753; School Trustees v. Stocker, 42 N. J. Law, 115. However, if the court has jurisdiction it is fatal that no objection to the form of the proceeding was taken in limine. Funck v. Smith, 46 N. J. Law, 484; North...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trustees of Clients' Sec. Fund of Bar of New Jersey v. Yucht
...v. Murray-Nutz, Inc., 109 N.J.Eq. 95 ; Grobholz v. Merdel Mortgage Investment Co., 115 N.J. Eq. 411 ; Jersey City Welding and Machine Works v. Hudson County White Co., 116 N.J. Eq. 548 . The last two cases are not opposed to the rule that this court should decide questions relative to prope......
-
Silverman v. Kolker
...the property in question, separate suit should be filed, Grobholz v. Merdel Mtg. Invest. Co., supra; Jersey City, etc., Inc. v. Hudson, etc., Co., 116 N.J.Eq. 548, 174 A. 516 (E. & A. 1934); 75 C.J.S. Receivers § 124 (1952). The receiver, being an officer of the court, should normally seek ......
-
Nick v. Holtz
...respondent. But such is not the case. It is the receiver's duty to raise the objection in limine. Jersey City Welding & Machine Works v. Hudson County White Co., 116 N.J.Eq. 548, 174 A. 516. In the case at bar the receiver chose his own forum, a court having jurisdiction of the subject matt......
-
Bd. of Educ. of City of Trenton v. State Bd. of Educ.
...for its government. N.J.S.A. 18:2-4. Further, there was no objection to jurisdiction in limine. Jersey City Welding & Machine Works v. Hudson County White Co., 116 N.J.Eq. 548, 174 A. 516. The decision was certified to us by the Board's secretary as that of the State Board. The presumption ......