Ulman v. Greenwood
| Decision Date | 03 March 1913 |
| Citation | 84 N.J.L. 284,86 A. 411 |
| Parties | ULMAN v. GREENWOOD. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Action by William A. Ulman against William M. Greenwood. From a rule of the Supreme Court striking out a demurrer to the declaration, defendant appeals. Dismissed.
Queen & Stout, of Jersey City, for appellant.
A. C. Streitwolf, of New Brunswick, for respondent.
The defendant in this case demurred to the plaintiff's declaration, which was founded upon a New York judgment. The demurrer was stricken out by the court on the ground that it was so framed as to prejudice, embarrass, or delay a fair trial of the action. The order striking out the demurrer granted the defendant leave to file an answer to the declaration within 20 days after the service of a copy of the order. The defendant refused to accept this privilege, and took this appeal within the time granted to answer.
Our Practice Act (Laws 1903, p. 569) § 110, permits that, when any pleading is ordered to be stricken out because so framed as to prejudice, embarrass, or delay a fair trial of the action, the order may be entered on the record, if required by the party against whom the same is made, and error may be assigned thereon. The record referred to in this provision is the judgment record, and, until that is made up, manifestly the rule cannot be entered upon it. It is entirely settled that there can be no review in this court of any interlocutory order of an inferior court of law until after the entry of final judgment. If the defendant desired to stand or fall upon the validity of his demurrer, he should have seen to it that judgment by default was entered against him, and that the order striking out the demurrer was made a part of the record of that judgment. Blessing v. McLinden, 81 N. J. Law, 380, 79 Atl. 347, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 312.
No final judgment having been entered against the defendant, so far as the case shows, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schaffran v. Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Mills
...S.) 923; Defiance Fruit Co. v. Fox, 76 N. J. Law, 482, 70 A. 460; Allgair v. Hickman, 82 N. J. Law, 369, 372, 81 A. 752; Ulman v. Greenwood, 84 N. J. Law, 284, 86 A. 411; 3 Corpus Juris, 432. An opposite practice would produce the odd situation of a court sustaining, on appeal, an obviously......
- Holt v. Akarman