Newark Twentieth Century Taxicab Ass'n v. Lerner, C--624

• Citation: 78 A.2d 315,11 N.J.Super. 363
• Decision Date: 19 January 1951
• Docket Number: No. C--624,C--624
• Parties: NEWARK TWENTIETH CENTURY TAXICAB ASS'N v. LERNER et al.
• Court: Superior Court of New Jersey

Page 363

11 N.J.Super. 363

78 A.2d 315

NEWARK TWENTIETH CENTURY TAXICAB ASS'N v. LERNER et al.

No. C--624.

Superior Court of New Jersey

Chancery Division.

Jan. 19, 1951.

Charles Handler, Newark, for plaintiff.

Crummy & Consodine, Newark (Andrew B. Crummy, Newark, appearing), for defendant Harry Lerner.

Furst, Furst & Feldman, Newark (George Furst, Newark, appearing), for defendant David E. Feldman.

Rothbard, Harris & Oxfeld, Newark (Emil Oxfeld, Newark, appearing), for defendants David Oxfeld and Herman Feldman.

Ruback, Albach & Weisman, Newark (Meyer E. Ruback, Newark, appearing), for defendant Lincoln Mut. Cas. Inc. Co.

STEIN, J.S.C.

The several defendants, by four motions, seek a dismissal of the complaint herein on substantially the same grounds namely, that the complaint sets forth no claim or cause of action upon which the plaintiff is entitled to any relief. These motions are a substitute for the former general demurrer and have operated to admit, but only for the purposes of the motions, the allegations of the complaint.

The complaint is brought by an association of taxicab drivers, incorporated under our statute which permits persons to incorporate for purposes not pecuniary (R.S. 15:1--1, Et seq., N.J.S.A.). That association has for its function the good and welfare of its members and serves that object by various facilities, such as a common telephone call system, a uniform color scheme for the cabs, a central garage for the more economical purchase of gasoline and supplies, and the negotiation of liability insurance for the cabs owned by the individual members. Such insurance, which is mandatory under the law, is obtained from the defendant insurance company. The latter is a mutual company and its members are its policyholders. The plaintiff association owns no cabs and holds no insurance policy from the defendant company. The policies issued by the insurance company are issued directly to the individual members of the plaintiff association (and to outsiders), who severally and directly pay the premiums therefor to the insurance company. The complaint fails to disclose any property right or interest residing in the plaintiff association in respect of any of the funds, properties or assets of the insurance company.

The complaint makes various charges against the president, the vice-president and the counsel of the defendant insurance company. When these charges are examined, it is found that they all relate to acts which, if done, constitute alleged wrongs against the insurance company itself or against its policyholders. Amongst the wrongs so charged are excessive salaries, improper commissions, and other conduct claimed to be objectionable and prejudicial to the members of the plaintiff association as policyholders in the defendant company. It is needless to analyze each allegation, for each charge leads to the same conclusion: namely, that the alleged offending conduct does not and cannot constitute a wrong to the plaintiff association. It is clear that the association has, in respect of the affairs of the defendant insurance company and the conduct of the latter's officers, no such property right as can be violated.

One may not have judicial redress in respect of a matter in which he is without interest, right or duty. This rule was said to be 'fundamental' in the case of Baxter v. Baxter, ...