Plahn v. Givernaud
| Decision Date | 15 November 1915 |
| Parties | PLAHN v. GIVERNAUD et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Suit by Jeanne M. J. Givernaud against Charles Givernaud and others, in which David P. Plahn, administrator, etc., was substituted as complainant. Prom an order authorizing the taking of an appeal from a decree dismissing the bill, defendants appeal. Reversed.
Gilbert Collins, of Jersey City, and Dougal Herr, of Hoboken, for appellants. J. W. Rufus Besson, of Hoboken, and M. T. Rosenberg, of Jersey City, for appellee.
In May, 1910, Jeanne M. J. Givernaud, a resident of the republic of Prance, filed her bill in this cause, seeking thereby to have set aside and declared void, upon the ground of fraud practiced upon the Court of Chancery, a decree entered in that court in February, 1872, divorcing her from her husband, Barthelemy L. Givernaud, and to have her marital status restored, so that she might enforce against his estate (he having died in January, 1908) a claim of some $9,000, with interest, which was founded upon a judgment recovered by her against her then husband in one of the French courts in the year 1806. The defendants having answered, the cause having come on to be heard, and the merits of the case having been adjudged in favor of the defendants, a decree was entered dismissing the bill upon the 9th day of January, 1913. More than a year thereafter, and on January 19, 1914, Mrs. Givernaud died, without having appealed from the decree. In June of that year her administrator obtained an order from the Court of Chancery substituting him as the complainant in the cause, and a further order authorizing him to take an appeal from the decree on or before the 8th day of July then next. The present appeal is taken from this latter order.
At the time of the making of the final decree in this cause the complainant was required, in case she desired to appeal therefrom, to take such appeal within one year after such decree was made. Pamph. Laws 1907, p. 452. By force of this statutory provision, therefore, her right to appeal was determined on the 8th day of January, 1914, eleven days before her death. On the 30th day of March, 1914, the Legislature amended the act of 1907 by adding thereto the following:
"Provided, * * * that in all cases where final decree has heretofore been filed or may hereafter be filed the Chancellor may, in his discretion, by order made not more than six mouths after the time herein above limited for taking an appeal, extend the time of the appellant for making his appeal for a period not exceeding six months from the expiration of the time so limited." P. L. p. 134.
It was pursuant to this enactment that the Chancellor made the order appealed from, and the contention of the appellants before us is that the Chancellor's order was improvidently made, first, because the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State by Parsons v. Standard Oil Co.
... ... right to sue, is an act to vest property in one at the expense of another.' The principle was reiterated by the Court of Errors and Appeals in Plahn v. Givernaud, 85 N.J.Eq. 143, 96 A. 40 (E. & ... Page 295 ... A. 1915), and in Ballantine & Sons v. Macken, 94 N.J.Eq. 502, 110 A. 910, 10 ... ...
-
State v. Standard Oil Co., Docket 169/14.
...(41 N.J.L. 9) 12 Vroom 9.’ In 1915 Chief Justice Gummere speaking for our Court of Errors and Appeals in Plahn v. Givernaud, 85 N.J.Eq. 143, at page 146, 96 A. 40, at page 41, concerning the principle that a right which has become vested by the expiration of time cannot thereafter be impair......
-
Pfizer's Estate, In re
...appeal has run the parties to a judgment have a vested right therein which cannot subsequently be taken from them. Plahn v. Givernaud, 85 N.J.Eq. 143, 96 A. 40 (E. & A.1915); Shade v. Colgate, 3 N.J. 91, 69 A.2d 19 (1949). The necessity for and the desirability of the rules governing this c......
-
Nuese's Estate, In re
...an appeal has run the parties to a judgment have a vested right therein which cannot subsequently be taken from them. Plahn v. Givernaud, 85 N.J. Eq. 143, 96 A. 40 (e. & A.1915); Shade v. Colgate, 3 N.J. 91, 69 A.2d 19 The necessity for compliance with the rules relating to the time for app......