McCombs v. Peniston, s. A--144

• Decision Date: 23 September 1952
• Docket Number: Nos. A--144,A--145,s. A--144
• Citation: 22 N.J.Super. 246,92 A.2d 42
• Parties: McCOMBS et al. v. PENISTON et al. McCOMBS v. PENISTON et al.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 246

22 N.J.Super. 246

92 A.2d 42

McCOMBS et al. v. PENISTON et al.

McCOMBS v. PENISTON et al.

Nos. A--144, A--145.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued Sept. 8, 1952.

Decided Sept. 23, 1952.

Frank J. Brunotto, Jr., Montclair, for plaintiffs-appellants on both appeals.

Bernard Shurkin, Newark, for defendants-respondents on both appeals (Sanderson & Engel, Newark, attorneys; Eugene W. Cullen, Jersey City, on the brief).

Before Judges JAYNE, PROCTOR and SCHETTINO.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

PROCTOR, J.S.C. (temporarily assigned).

These actions, consolidated for trial, were brought to recover damages resulting from a collision involving a truck occupied by the plaintiffs and an automobile operated by the defendant Peniston and owned by the defendant Cohen. The other defendant, Kolb, was the owner of a public garage and the alleged employer of Peniston.

A judgment of dismissal was granted in favor of the defendant Kolb at the conclusion of plaintiffs' case. The question of the liability of the remaining defendants was submitted to the jury. The jury failed to agree on a verdict and the action was marked for a retrial 'Date to be Fixed.'

Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment dismissing the action against Kolb.

Appeals to this court in civil cases are governed by Rule 4:2--1 and Rule 4:2--2. Rule 4:2--1, which applies to this case, provides that appeals may be taken from final judgments. In Petersen v. Falzarano, 6 N.J. 477 at page 452, 79 A.2d 50, at page 53 (1951), the Supreme Court said:

'It is firmly settled in this jurisdiction that 'final judgments' as used in Rules 4:2--1 and 1:2--1 are those from which writs of error would lie under the old practice. At common law and under the Practice Act of 1912 a writ of error, or an appeal tantamount thereto, would not lie until after final judgment or final disposition of the case, not only as to all issues but as to all parties.'

See also Young, Adm'r, v. Board of Education, 84 N.J.L. 770, 87 A. 347 (E. & A.1913); Wheat v. Public Service Gas Co., 97 N.J.L. 584, 117 A. 594 (E. & A.1922); DeSalvo v. Friedman, 112 N.J.L. 410, 169 A. 667 (E. & A.1934); Note, 1 A.L.R.2d 422.

It is apparent from the record that there has been no final disposition of the case since the action against Peniston and Cohen has not been terminated.

The requirement of a final judgment, as to all parties and all issues, rests upon the ground that intermediate appeals would unduly delay the final disposition of litigation and that a complete disposition of the matter in the trial court...