Key v. Paul
| Decision Date | 22 November 1897 |
| Citation | 38 A. 823,61 N.J.L. 133 |
| Parties | KEY v. PAUL (two cases). |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Actions by John Cooper Key against Sarah E. Paul, and by Charles Key against Sarah E. Paul. On motion for an order vacating an order of a justice to strike out pleas as frivolous. Denied.
Argued November term, 1897, before VAN SYCKEL, COLLINS, and DIXON, JJ.
John J. Crandall, for the motion.
David O. Watkins, opposed.
During vacation the plaintiffs moved before Mr. Justice Ludlow for an order striking out the defendant's pleas as frivolous, under section 314 of the Practice Act (Gen. St. p. 2585). This motion being denied, a rule to that effect was entered, and the plaintiffs now move before the court for an order vacating the order of Mr. Justice Ludlow, and striking out the pleas as frivolous. The practice of moving in vacation before a single judge for orders incident to the progress of a cause is quite ancient, and lasupported at common law because of the convenience thus afforded to suitors, and of the relief to the court. Rex v. Almon, Wim. Op. 264. in New Jersey it has, besides, the sanction of the, legislature. Such orders are, however, generally subject to review by the court itself (Peterson v. Davis, 6 C. B. 235; Darrington v. Price, Id. 309; Thompson v. Becke, 4 Q. B. 759; In re Stretton, 14 Mees. & W. 806; Pike v. Davis, 6 Mees. & W. 546), even though the judge acts by the express authority of a statute (Robinson v. Burbidge, 9 C. B. 289; Chilton v. Carrington, 15 C. B. 730; Owens v. Woosman, L. R. 3 Q. B. 469). But when the motion appeals merely to the discretion of the judge, and does not involve the substantial rights of the parties, the court will usually not review his action. Rex v. Archbishop of York, 1 Adol. & E. 394. The application to strike out a plea as frivolous is of this discretionary character. There are certain legal rules, according to which it can be decided whether a plea is bad or not; but whether a plea is so bad as to be frivolous is a question which often cannot be brought to the test of any definite rule of law, but must be determined by the judge in each case according to his view of the degree in which the plea lacks conformity to rule. Nor is any substantial right of the plaintiff prejudiced by a refusal to strike out a plea as frivolous. He may still have the legal validity of the plea adjudged on demurrer. Our conclusion is that the motions should be denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elblum Holding Corp. v. Mintz
...Subsequently, the rule to show cause was discharged, and a petition for re-hearing denied. Defendant, upon the authority of Key v. Paul, 61 N.J.L. 133, 38 A. 823, appeals from the disposition thus made by Mr. Justice First. We are met, in limine, with a procedural question. Plaintiff challe......
-
Hosier v. Great Notch Corp...
...have been entrusted to judges of the Circuit and Common Pleas Courts in cases that have been referred to them. The case of Key v. Paul, 61 N.J.L. 133, 38 A. 823, upon which the applicant relies, in our view, has no pertinency whatever to the question here under consideration, for the Circui......
-
Moreland v. Vomilas
...assumed, such as to hear motions and petitions and to make rules and orders thereon. 23 Cyc. 543; 15 R. C. L. 522; Key v. Paul, 61 N. J. Law, 133, 38 A. 823. Recognizing the necessity of granting to judges the right to speak authoritatively in vacation upon many matters, or multiplying the ......
-
van Demark v. Sartorius
...whom the case had been assigned for trial is subject to review by this court. Byers v. Weinstein, 119 N.J.L. 207, 195 A. 376; Key v. Paul, 61 N.J.L. 133, 38 A. 823. The motion was, in effect, if not in precise words, a motion in arrest of judgment. If it is to be treated as such, it must be......