Ridgeley v. Walker

• Decision Date: 16 November 1914
• Docket Number: Nos. 68, 69.,s. 68, 69.
• Citation: 86 N.J.L. 590,92 A. 394
• Parties: RIDGELEY v. WALKER et al. MUNFORD v. SAME.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

92 A. 394

86 N.J.L. 590

RIDGELEY

v. WALKER et al.

MUNFORD

v. SAME.

Nos. 68, 69.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 16, 1914.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Two actions, one by William B. Ridgeley, the other by Edward S. Munford, both against John B. Walker and others. From judgments for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

See, also, 82 N. J. Law, 341, 82 Atl. 861.

These two cases, which were heard together upon the various motions made in the Supreme Court, may be conveniently disposed of in a single memorandum.

Ridgeley, claiming to be a purchaser found by Munford as agent for the defendants, sued for a breach of a contract to sell him certain shares of stock, and Munford, as such agent, sued for his loss by reason of the same breach.

The substance of the original declaration filed in the Ridgeley Case is set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court upon demurrer (Ridgley v. Walker, 81 N. J. Law, 176, 80 Atl. 108), and the substance of the amended declaration is stated under the same title in 82 N. J. Law, 341, 82 Atl. 861. The underlying questions that affect both suits are raised in the Ridgeley Case. In each case the defendants filed a plea of general issue to the common counts, and met the special counts by special pleas setting up the statute of frauds of the District of Columbia, where the alleged oral contract of sale was made. A replication filed to these special pleas, setting up that the oral contract was in completion of a previod denied. A replication presented under special leave to plead over was not permitted to be filed because it raised no valid issue.

In this state of the record, upon motion for judgment for the defendants, such judgment was ordered, from which judgment the plaintiffs appealed, as well as from the orders denying their motion to strike out the special pleas, and from the orders striking out the replication filed by them.

Ernest L. Quackenbush, of Newark, and Miles M. Dawson, of New York City, for appellants.

Robert H. McCarter, of Newark (Coke & Pickrell and John S. Eggleston, all of Richmond, Va., on the brief), for respondents.

GARRISON J. (after stating the facts as above). We do not find it necessary to express any opinion upon the technical points of pleading and procedure argued by the appellants or even to decide whether all of the matters so argued are proper subjects of appeal. By the twenty-seventh section of the Practice Act of 1912 (P. L. p. 382), under...