Kurth v. Maier.
| Decision Date | 09 March 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 229.,229. |
| Parties | KURTH v. MAIER. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Suit by Herman M. Kurth against Arthur Maier. From that portion of order denying defendant's application for counsel fees and costs, the defendant appeals.
Reversed with directions.
Laurence Semel, of Newark, for appellant.
Paul M. Strack, of Newark, for respondent.
The narrow question for decision on the record submitted is whether the order under review denying appellant's motion for allowance of counsel fees and taxed costs is, as urged, improper.
This is appellant's-defendant below-second appeal in this case. His first appeal was from an order denying his motion ‘to strike out the bill of complaint’ on the ground that respondent-complainant below-had an ‘adequate remedy at law.’ Appellant prevailed. Kurth v. Maier, 133 N.J.Eq. 388, 389, 31 A.2d 835. Accordingly, he caused a remittitur to be filed, the decretal provision of which reads as follows: ‘Ordered * * * that the order of the Court of Chancery made on the 4th day of November, 1942, from which defendant appealed, be and the same is hereby reversed and costs in this court and in the Court of Chancery to be paid by the respondent, and it is further ordered, that the record in this cause be remitted to the Court of Chancery for further proceedings therein according to law and the practice of this court.'
Thereafter appellant, by his solicitor, on due notice to the solicitor for the respondent, applied to the court of chancery for an order decreeing that counsel fees and taxed costs be allowed to him, and the solicitor for respondent, on due notice, applied for an order transferring the cause to the New Jersey Supreme Court in light of the determination that respondent had a complete and adequate remedy at law.
The learned Vice Chancellor advised an order (July 20, 1943) which was entered, denying appellant's application for costs and granting respondent's application for transfer. Appellant's second and instant appeal is from that portion of the order which denied his application for counsel fees and costs.
We think that appellant must again prevail. The applicable principles are settled. They are clearly and tersely stated in Wemple v. B. F. Goodrich & Co., 127 N.J.Eq. 333, at page 335, 12 A.2d 716, at page 717. It should suffice to observe that the court below was obliged explicitly to carry out the terms and provisions of the remi...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Plainfield-Union Water Co., Application of
...Isserman v. Isserman,2 N.J. 1, 65 A.2d 508 (1949); Oswald v. Seidler, 138 N.J.Eq. 440, 47 A.2d 437 (E. & A. 1946); Kurth v. Maier, 134 N.J.Eq. 511, 36 A.2d 202 (E. & A. 1944); Wemple v. B. F. Goodrich Co., 127 N.J.Eq. 333, 12 A.2d 716 (E. & A. 1940); Briggs v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 334 U.S. ......
-
Hellstern v. Smelowitz
...exclusively in the appellate tribunal. Wemple v. B. F. Goodrich Co., 127 N.J.Eq. 333, 12 A.2d 716 (E. & A. 1940); Kurth v. Maier, 134 N.J.Eq. 511, 36 A.2d 202 (E. & A. 1944). Practicability and sound logic sustain the rule and its supporting Cases may be envisioned in which the determinativ......
-
Flanigan v. McFeely, A--41
...Isserman v. Isserman, 2 N.J. 1, 65 A.2d 508 (1949); Oswald v. Seidler, 138 N.J.Eq. 440, 47 A.2d 437 (E. & A. 1946); Kurth v. Maier, 134 N.J.Eq. 511, 36 A.2d 202 (E. & A.1944); Wemple v. B. F. Goodrich Co., 127 N.J.Eq. 333, 12 A.2d 716 (E. & A.1940); Briggs v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 334 U.S. 3......
-
Oswald v. Seidler.
...remedy for such rests exclusively in the appellate tribunal. Wemple v. B. F. Goodrich Co., 127 N.J.Eq. 333, 12 A.2d 716; Kurth v. Maier, 134 N.J.Eq. 511, 36 A.2d 202. If complainant is still mentally incompetent, appropriate measures will be required to safeguard her property, but doubt on ......