Mianulli v. Gunagan
Decision Date | 05 October 1954 |
Docket Number | No. A--602,A--602 |
Citation | 108 A.2d 200,32 N.J.Super. 212 |
Parties | Sylvester MIANULLI and Carmela Mianuill, his wife, plaintiffs-appellants, v. Thomas J. GUNAGAN and Minnie Gunagan, his wife, defendants-respondents. . Appellate Division |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Samuel J. Davidson, Hoboken, argued the cause for appellants (DeFazio, Davidson & DeFazio, Hoboken, attorneys).
Allan A. Maki, Passaic, argued the cause for respondents (Corbin & Corbin, Passaic, attorneys).
Before Judges CLAPP, JAYNE and FRANCIS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
JAYNE, J.A.D.
The defendants resisted the prosecution of this action by a motion for an order dismissing the complaint because of its failure to allege a cause of action for which remedial relief could be judicially granted. R.R. 4:12-- 2(e). The motion was not supported by any factual information extraneous and supplementary to the allegations of the complaint. Cf. R.R. 4:58. The utility and efficacy of the modern motion to strike a complaint for some reason apparent on its face or because the factual charges as stated therein fail adequately to invoke jurisdiction or relief are functionally similar to those of the demurrer in our early practice. The material matters of fact sufficiently alleged in the complaint are for immediate purposes generally to be regarded as admitted. Cf. State v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 133 N.J.Eq. 554, 33 A.2d 699 (Ch.1943). There is an exception to the rule inapplicable here where facts are alleged which are contradictory to facts of which the court takes judicial notice. Daniel's Chancery Practice 546; Middlesex Transp. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 82 N.J.Eq. 550, 89 A. 45 (Ch.1913); Dloss Realty Corp. v. Schultz Brewing Co., Inc., 178 A. 276, 13 N.J.Misc. 389, 391 (Ch.1935). Unlike the consideration of an application for summary judgment, the court is not attentive to the ascertainment of the existence of a genuine issue concerning a material fact. Vide, R.R. 4:58--3.
In the determination of a motion of the present nature the basic inquiry, like that in the event of the former demurrer, is whether the defendant should be required to answer. Accordingly it has long been the rule that to prevail in such an attack upon the pleading, its insufficiencies to invoke relief must be clearly apparent and if there is any ground on which the pleading can be legitimately retained the endeavor to strike it must fail. Here the motion was granted, and the propriety of the order is the subject of this appeal.
For the purposes of our review we shall necessarily construe the import of the allegations of the complaint liberally in favor of the pleader.
The following is an epitome of the factual narrative that can be logically collected from the associated allegations of the complaint.
The plaintiffs acquired a parcel of land known as plot No. 6 and the defendants became the owners of plot No. 8 as designated on a plan entitled 'Map of Property of Andrew D. Hopper and George H. Hahn, Hurd Cove, Lake Hopatcong, N.J.' Plot No. 7 was situate between the two first mentioned. The plaintiffs and the defendants desired to enlarge their own plots by the acquisition of the one-half of plot No. 7 contiguous to their respective properties. Thus motivated, it was orally understood and agreed by them that 'each would make an effort As the agent of the other to acquire title to said plot No. 7 and whoever of said persons acquired the said title thereto, he or she would then convey at cost one-half of the said Plot 7 immediately adjacent to the premises of the respective plaintiffs or defendants.' The defendant Minnie Gunagan purchased plot No. 7, and the defendants have refused to convey to the plaintiffs at cost the one-half thereof contiguous to the property of the plaintiffs 'contrary to the trust and confidence reposed in them by the plaintiffs as in equity and good conscience they should do.' The prayer of the complaint is that the defendant Minnie Gunagan be adjudged to hold the title to the one-half of plot No. 7 contiguous to plot No. 6 in trust for the plaintiffs, and that the defendants be directed to convey the same to the plaintiffs upon an equitable adjustment of the cost of acquiring the interjacent plot.
The order striking out the complaint is sought to be sustained by the defendants for the reasons that the complaint omits to allege that the parties were partners or that the plaintiffs contributed anything toward the payment of the purchase price and that the action is in reality in the nature of one for the specific performance of an oral agreement to convey land which encounters the inhibition of the statute of frauds. The applicable decisions are said to be Schultz v. Waldons, 60 N.J.Eq. 71, 47 A. 187 (Ch.1901); Partridge v. Cummings, 99 N.J.Eq. 14, 131 A. 683 (Ch.1926); Grant v. Steenland Construction Co., 99 N.J.Eq. 82, 132 A. 850 (Ch.1926), affirmed 100 N.J.Eq. 566, 135 A. 917 (E. & A.1927); Silberman v. Angert, 101 N.J.Eq. 477, 138 A. 529 (Ch.1927); DeMarco v. Estlow, 18 N.J.Super. 30, 86 A.2d 446 (Ch.Div.1952), affirmed 21 N.J.Super. 356, 91 A.2d 272 (App.Div.1952).
We surmise that in the present case the nature of the alleged cause of action and the factual basis for the equitable relief have been misconceived. In its conspicuous aspect this action does not reach for a judgment directing the specific performance of the oral agreement to sell nor for the adjudication of a resulting trust. Its obvious objective is the equitable establishment of a constructive trust arising out of alleged circumstances of fraudulent imposition practiced upon the plaintiffs by their agent.
The allegation in this complaint of the existence of the fiduciary relationship between the plaintiffs and the purchaser...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rappaport v. Nichols
...reasonably drawn from them. See Puccio v. Cuthbertson, 21 N.J.Super. 544, 548, 91 A.2d 424 (App.Div.1952); Mianulli v. Gunagan, 32 N.J.Super. 212, 215, 108 A.2d 200, (App.Div.1954); Di Cristofaro v. Laurel Grove Memorial Park, 43 N.J.Super. 244, 248, 128 A.2d 281 (App.Div.1957). At oral arg......
-
Di Cristofaro v. Laurel Grove Memorial Park
...upon the sufficiency of a pleading, R.R. 4:8--6; Grobart v. Grobart, 5 N.J. 161, 167, 74 A.2d 294 (1950); Mianulli v. Gunagan, 32 N.J.Super. 212, 108 A.2d 200 (App.Div.1954); Puccio v. Cuthbertson, 21 N.J.Super. 544, 546, 91 A.2d 424 (App.Div.1952); Kurtz v. Oremland, 24 N.J.Super. 235, 93 ......
-
Ray v. Winter
...would needlessly expand an already too long dissertation but additional case authorities abound. For instance, Mianulli v. Gunagan, 32 N.J.Super. 212, 108 A.2d 200, is practically identical on its facts to the case under here and, in reliance upon the Restatement of the Law, Restitution, se......
-
In re Allergan Biocell Textured Breast Implant Prod. Liab. Litig.
...and need not accept allegations "which are contradictory to facts of which the court takes judicial notice." Mianulli v. Gunagan, 32 N.J. Super. 212, 215 (App. Div. 1954); Rivelli v. MH & W Corp., 383 N.J. Super. 69, 75 (App. Div. 2006). After a thorough examination, should the court determ......