Salaman v. Equitable Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 20 May 1929
• Docket Number: No. 98.,98.
• Citation: 146 A. 423
• Parties: SALAMAN v. EQUITABLE TRUST CO. et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

146 A. 423

SALAMAN

v. EQUITABLE TRUST CO. et al.

No. 98.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

May 20, 1929.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Ashor Salaman against Sadie Cades and others. From an order admitting the Equitable Trust Company as a party plaintiff, plaintiff Salaman appeals. Appeal dismissed.

August B. Repetto, of Atlantic City, for appellant.

Equitable Trust Company and Morris Bloom, of Atlantic City, for respondent Trust Company.

PER CURIAM. This was an appeal by Salaman from an order made in the Supreme Court December 11, 1928, by Mr. Justice Katzenbach. It orders "that the Equitable Trust Company * * * be and it is hereby admitted as a party plaintiff with the plaintiff, Ashor Salaman, in the above entitled cause." In the opinion in the court below Mr. Justice Katzenbach, among other things, said:

"The Equitable Trust Company contends that any judgment which may be obtained in the present action should be paid to it under the terms of this agreement of November 26, 1926. The suit is in actuality one for a breach of this agreement of November 26, 1926.

"The situation presented is, that if the judgment is paid the Cades are entitled to the mortgage. This mortgage would have to be assigned by the Equitable Trust Company to the Cades estate. To determine fully the question finally, if it were the subject of consideration by this court, one would have to know the circumstances and the date under which the plaintiff, Salaman, took this mortgage. There has been no testimony with reference to any assignment of the claim by Isen to Salaman which gives the court any of these facts."

Thus it plainly appears that the order appealed from is not a final judgment in the cause, and from a final judgment only may an appeal be taken. Van Hoogenstyn v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 90 N. J. Law, 189, 100 A. 232; Denholtz v. Donner, Denholtz Co., 96 N. J. Law, 545, 115 A. 351; Salmons v. Rugyeri, 103 N. J. Law, 596, 137 A. 568.

Let the appeal in this case be dismissed.