Simon v. Globe Indem. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 April 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 407.,407. |
| Citation | 154 A. 238 |
| Parties | SIMON v. GLOBE INDEMNITY CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Passaic County.
Action by Aaron L. Simon against the Globe Indemnity Company. From a judgment striking plaintiff's state of demand, he appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued October term, 1930, before CASE, 1 )ALY, and DONGES, JJ.
Aaron L. Simon, of Passaic, pro se.
Charles Stockdell Gray, of Newark, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the action of the judge of the district court of Passaic in striking the plaintiff's state of demand. The plaintiff brought the action in the district court of the city of Clifton against the defendant under the provisions of the act of 1914 (P. L. p. 410), giving an attorney, counselor at law, or solicitor in chancery, a lien upon any cause of action, etc., for compensation. The suit in the Clifton district court was dismissed. The judge stated that the court was without jurisdiction. Thereupon plaintiff brought his suit in the Passaic district court, setting up somewhat different facts, but asserting a right to recover against the defendant insurance company because, he asserts, it settled a claim for damages brought by the clients of plaintiff against the insurance company's assured. This state of demand was struck out. It is from the judgment based on this action that the appeal is taken. The plaintiff proceeds upon the assumption that the Passaic district court judge granted the motion upon a finding that the judgment of dismissal by the Clifton district court is a final adjudication of the matter. This was so stated by the clerk of the Passaic court in a letter to the plaintiff. The plaintiff requests that the sufficiency of the state of demand be not passed upon, and requests that the matter be disposed of as if the only question involved were the correctness of the judge's finding that the action of the Clifton court rendered the matter res adjudicata.
Under well-established rules, the question is not whether the reasons assigned by the court below are sound, but whether the action taken is correct. The state of demand did not set out a good cause of action. Passing the question of the validity of the act, which is not in question, the remedy provided in the act of 1914 is by petition of the attorney, solicitor, or counselor to the court in which the original action was brought by him. This admittedly was the Supreme Court, and inasmuch as the proceeding is purely statutory, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Am. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Niebuhr
...remedy except by the provisions of the statute, he is obliged to go to the forum designated by the statute." Simon v. Globe Indemnity Co., 154 A. 238, 9 N.J.Misc. 392. But when there is brought into Chancery for distribution a fund on which an attorney claims the statutory lien for services......
-
Flavell v. Flavell
...petitioner may press his claim. Whatever doubt there may have been upon this point is set at rest by the case of Simon v. Globe Indemnity Co., 154 A. 238, 9 N.J.Misc. 392, which holds that: "The lien, given to an attorney, counsellorat-law or solicitor in chancery, under Pamph.L.1914, p. 41......
-
Artale v. Columbia Ins. Co.
...may determine and enforce the lien." This language was treated as mandatory by the Supreme Court in SimOn v. Globe Indemnity Co., 154 A. 238, 9 N. J. Misc. 392. Assuming the correctness of that view, then it follows that the statutory lien of a solicitor in a chancery suit must be ascertain......