Pamrapau Corp. v. City of Bayonne

• Decision Date: 29 April 1938
• Parties: PAMRAPAU CORPORATION v. CITY OF BAYONNE et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

198 A. 764

PAMRAPAU CORPORATION

v. CITY OF BAYONNE et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

April 29, 1938.

Suit by the Pamrapau Corporation against the City of Bayonne and another. On an order to show cause why defendant should not answer complainant's petition.

Defendants directed to answer the petition within 20 days after date of order.

Transferred from the Supreme Court, 119 N.J.Law, 346, 196 A. 678.

Gross & Gross, of Jersey City, for complainant-petitioner. J. Raymond Tiffany, of Hoboken, for defendant Central District, Inc. EGAN, Vice Chancellor.

The complainant, in October, 1937, was allowed a writ of certiorari in the New Jersey Supreme Court. That court's opinion, filed January 31, 1938, 119 N.J.L. 346, 196 A. 678, held that the writ should be dismissed, but by its order subsequently made, instead of directing such dismissal, it said: "It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court do forthwith transfer, with the record thereof, all papers and exhibits filed in the cause for hearing and determination by the Court of Chancery of New Jersey." The cause, accordingly, is now in this court. The complainant filed herein a verified petition of its cause of action. An order to show cause why the defendants should not answer the petition was issued, and argument was had thereon. The defendants contend that the complainant's procedure in this court should not be by petition, but by way of bill of complaint, and that it should "either take an order to answer or issue a subpoena ad respondendum." The defendants also contend that, "in the proceedings pending in the Supreme Court, certain stipulations were entered into that are part of that record," and "those stipulations should have no affect or bearing" and is "another ground for refusal on the part of this court to accept a transfer of the cause."

The petition herein appears to present all the facts in the case. In the pending situation, it is analogous to a bill of complaint and effects the same purpose. The defendants should answer it if they wish to offer a defense to the suit. They, by proper procedure, were brought into the Supreme Court, and, under the statute, were removed from that court to this court. Carey v. Brown, 92 N.J.Eq. 497, 113 A. 499. I see no force in the defendants' argument that a plenary suit should be started and subpoenas ad respondendum issued. Why should a new proceeding be instituted when all the parties are already in court? The instant suit was not dismissed...