Lawless v. Fleming
| Decision Date | 23 June 1898 |
| Citation | 40 A. 638,56 N.J.E. 815 |
| Parties | LAWLESS et al. v. FLEMING. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Bill by Sara L. Fleming against Peter Lawless and another to foreclose a mortgage. From an order refusing to open a final decree of foreclosure and sale, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Manning & Engelbrecht and Halsey M. Barrett, for appellants.
Robert L. Fleming and Washington B. Williams, for respondent.
The bill in this cause, in which the appellants are the defendants, was filed to foreclose a mortgage held by the respondent upon property in Jersey City. A final decree was made on the 25th of January, 1897, and a sale of the mortgaged premises ordered. While an appeal to this court was pending, an application, based upon affidavits that a lost receipt bad been found, was made by the appellants to have the record in the cause remitted to the court of chancery for such further action by that court at it might deem fit and just, without prejudice to either party, and an order was made to that effect. Upon the return of the record to that court, a motion was made to open the final decree, and permit the petitioners to produce and prove the receipt, alleged to have been lost and afterwards found, for the payment of $2,600, which it was claimed should be deducted from the final decree. The court of chancery, after a full hearing, denied the prayer of the petition, and an appeal from that order is now before us for review.
The single question on this appeal is whether the vice chancellor erred in denying that application, and any expression of opinion as to the merits of the case upon the whole record will be carefully avoided. The ground of the refusal rested mainly upon the disobedience of an order in the cause made on the 2d day of December, 1895, upon the application of the complainant, that the defendants "produce receipts, vouchers, or other evidences in writing of the payments by them, or any of them, to James Fleming, of the sum of three thousand two hundred and seventy-two dollars and seventy-two cents, and the sum of three thousand two hundred and twelve dollars and thirty cents, as set forth in said answer, and leave them with Isaac Romain, Esq., one of the masters of this court, for the space of ten days, subject to the examination of said petitioner." The right of the court of chancery to make such an order cannot be questioned, and has long been settled both by established custom and well-known authority. It is one of the inherent powers of a court of equity.
It will be necessary to first consider whether the appellants did, in fact, refuse to comply with the order of the court. Counsel have mutually agreed that the evidence furnished to this court in the argument of the whole case shall be used as the record on this appeal, and a resort to this evidence is required in determining this question. In the answer of the defendants it was alleged that there had been paid by the defendant Peter Lawless certain sums of money "for which he had vouchers ready to be produced and proved." This was a positive declaration to the court that the vouchers would, if required, be produced and proved; and the order of the court in answer to the complainant's petition was to produce these receipts, vouchers, and other evidences in writing, "as set forth in the answer." The order was broad enough in its terms to require the production of whatever was in the possession of the defendants as evidence of the payments claimed to have been made. There is no ambiguity in the language of the order, and its purport is clear. It is admitted that the order was duly served. The only paper produced in obedience to this order was one general receipt for the payment of four separate sums of money, aggregating $6,485. There was no dispute about two of these payments,—one of $1,400 and one of $800; but the other two payments claimed—one of $1,685 and one of $2,600— were earnestly contested, which resulted in their disallowance by the court in the final decree....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Winne, A--659
...a party to permit his opponent to inspect documents in his possession was inherent in our Court of Chancery. Lawless v. Fleming, 56 N.J.Eq. 815, 40 A. 638 (E. & A. 1898). The power was part of the general jurisdiction for the purpose of discovery. Copper King v. Robert, 76 N.J.Eq. 251, 74 A......
-
Nolan v. Guardian Coal & Oil Co.
... ... corporation is confined to cases where the same are ... evidential in a cause pending in the court (Lawless v ... Fleming, 56 N.J. Eq. 815, 40 A. 638), and cases arising ... under a bill filed for relief as well as discovery, or under ... a bill filed ... ...
-
Markle v. Local Union No. 641 of the Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of Am.
...basis for the action taken. An order in chancery for the inspection of books rests in the sound discretion of that court. Lawless v. Fleming, 56 N.J.Eq. 815, 40 A. 638; Fuller v. Alexander Hollander & Co., 61 N.J.Eq. 648, 47 A. 646, 88 Am.St.Rep. 456; Cocheu v. New Jersey General Security C......
-
Eaton Axle & Spring Co. v. Breeze Corporations, Inc.
... ... or papers in his possession is inherent in a court of equity, and can be exercised in the absence of any statute conferring such right.' Lawless v ... 162 A. 582 ... Fleming, 56 N. J. Eq. 815, 40 A. 638. By further decisions of our courts it has been firmly established that, where letters or ... ...