Seaman v. Mann

• Decision Date: 01 November 1933
• Citation: 168 A. 833
• Parties: SEAMAN v. MANN et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

168 A. 833

SEAMAN

v. MANN et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Nov. 1, 1933.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A court of equity has jurisdiction to compel a judgment creditor to set off against his judgment another judgment which his

debtor holds against him. But chancery should not interfere in the absence of special circumstances, since relief may be obtained in the law court which rendered the judgment as effectively as in chancery and upon the same equitable principles.

2. The lien of an attorney in his client's judgment for compensation for services in the cause is superior to the debtor's right to offset a judgment held by him.

3. Neither a cause of action for false arrest nor an interest in the judgment to be recovered thereon is assignable before judgment.

Suit by David Seaman against Saul M. Mann and others.

Decree in accordance with opinion.

Louis C. Friedman, of Paterson, for complainant.

Saul M. Mann, of Paterson, for defendants.

BIGELOW, Vice Chancellor.

The bill of complaint contains two causes of action which I will deal with separately. The first seeks a set-off of one judgment against another. The Silk City Plumbing Supply Company (not a party to the present suit) obtained a judgment in the Passaic county circuit court for $1,737 and costs against Walter H. Rohloff, one of the defendants in the suit before me. At that time Rohloff had an action pending in the circuit court against David Seaman, the complainant, who was an employee of the supply company. That action came to trial before a jury, who returned a verdict for Rohloff against Seaman for $400. Thereupon, and before judgment was entered on the verdict, the supply company assigned its judgment to Seaman. So, upon the entry of the judgment against him, he was the judgment debtor of Rohloff in one case and the judgment creditor by assignment in the other case. Ha asks a set-off of one judgment against the other.

Rohloffs attorney, the defendant Saul M. Mann, claims an interest in the $400 judgment. He was retained by Rohloff on a contingent fee basis, whereby he was promised one-half of any judgment which might be obtained in Rohloff's suit against Seaman. He also holds an assignment in the sum of $200 for services rendered in other matters. This instrument, made before Rohloff took judgment, does not purport to assign the cause of action, but rather to assign the sum mentioned out of any judgment to be recovered by Rohloff against Seaman or the supply company.

The first question argued is whether the Court of Chancery has and should exercise jurisdiction. That a court of law may set off against a judgment rendered by it another judgment, whether in the same or another court, has long been recognized. Hendrickson v. Brown, 39 N. J. Law, 239; McAdams v. Randolph, 42 N. J. Law, 332; Schautz v. Kearney, 47 N. J. Law, 56. The set-off "is ordinarily enforced by virtue of the control which courts have over their suitors and over the officers who execute their process." Again, the power rests in the control which a law court has over its own judgment; the application in substance is that the court declare its own judgment satisfied in whole or part by the set-off of the other judgment.

Although there is no decision in point in this state, I am satisfied that a court of equity has jurisdiction to compel a judgment creditor to set off against his judgment another judgment which his debtor holds against him; it is a jurisdiction to prevent an unconscionable use of a judgment. Simpson v. Hart, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. X.) 91 (Chancellor Kent); Simson v. Hart, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 63; 25 Am. & Eng. Enc. of L. 610. The Court of Chancery has concurrent jurisdiction with the court in which the judgment was entered; but chancery should not interfere in the absence of special circumstances, since relief may be obtained in the law court as...