Rutkowsky v. Bozza
| Citation | 73 A. 502,77 N.J.L. 724 |
| Parties | RUTKOWSKY v. BOZZA. |
| Decision Date | 14 June 1909 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to Supreme Court.
Action by Stephen T. Rutowsky, doing business as Stephen T. Kelly, against Michael Bozza. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.
G. M. Belfatto, for plaintiff in error. E. Q. Keasbey, for defendant in error.
This suit was instituted by the plaintiff to recover the value of certain plaster boards sold and delivered by him to the defendant. The cause was tried at the Essex circuit, where the plaintiff recovered a judgment which the defendant, the plaintiff in error, seeks to reverse.
The first assignment of error argued is that plaintiff was carrying on his business under an assumed name without filing, in the office of the clerk of the county where such business was carried on, the certificate required by the statute of May 17, 1906 (P. L. p. 513), which makes it a misdemeanor for any person or persons to carry on or transact business under an assumed name without filing in the office of the clerk of the county or counties in which such person or persons transact such business a certificate, setting forth the name under which it is transacted, and the "true or real full name or names" of the person or persons conducting or transacting the same, with the post-office address or addresses of the said person or persons. It is admitted that the plaintiff transacted his business with the defendant under the name of Stephen T. Kelly, which was not his real name, and that the certificate required by the act had not been filed. It also appeared that the contract had been executed by the plaintiff by the delivery of the goods sold by him to the defendant.
At the close of the plaintiff's case, there was a motion for nonsuit based upon the failure to file a certificate, and, this motion being refused, an exception was sealed and error assigned. The act does not make the contract void, but subjects the offender to indictment. It is highly penal, and must be strictly construed. Its manifest intention is to protect persons giving credit to one doing business under a fictitious name, and follows in substance a similar statute of the state of New York, adopted in this state after it had received judicial construction in New York, which it will be presumed was accepted by the Legislature of this state to be the true interpretation of the words of the act so adopted. Fritts v. Kuhl, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National State Bank of Newark v. Terminal Const. Corp.
...Such statutory violation is not, however, a bar to the offending party's recovery on an executed contract. Rutkowsky v. Bozza, 77 N.J.L. 724, 73 A. 502 (E. & A.1909). The purpose of the statute is to enable a person to know to whom he is giving credit. In the present case there is no such p......
-
Kugler v. Romain
...of this statute is to protect persons giving credit to the firm on the faith of the fictitious designation. Rutkowsky v. Bozza, 77 N.J.L. 724, 73 A. 502 (E. & A. 1909); Donner v. Parker Credit Corp., 10 N.J.Super. 350, 76 A.2d 277 (Ch.Div.1950). A violation of this statute is a misdemeanor.......
-
Uhlmann v. Kin Daw
... ... Ann. 259; Wolfe ... v. Joubert, 45 La. Ann. 1100, 13 So. 806, 21 L. R. A ... 772; Laws of New Jersey 1906, c. 240; Rutkowsky v ... Bozza, 77 N. J. Law, 724, 73 A. 502; Connecticut Public ... Acts 1911, c. 27, p. 1586; Sagal v. Fylar, 89 Conn ... 293, 93 ... ...
-
Lipman v. Thomas.
...Co. v. Gordon, 136 Me. 213 at page 219, 7 A.2d 619; Sagal v. Fylar et al., 89 Conn. 293, 93 A. 1027, L.R.A.1915E, 747; Rutkowsky v. Bozza, 77 N.J.L. 724, 73 A. 502; Gay et al. v. Seibold, 97 N.Y. 472, 49 Am.Rep. 533; Huey v. Passarelli, 267 Mass. 578, 166 N.E. 727. The statute does not disc......