Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Caubre

• Decision Date: 08 January 1934
• Citation: 169 A. 669
• Parties: VICTOR TALKING MACH. CO. v. CAUBRE.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

169 A. 669

VICTOR TALKING MACH. CO.

v. CAUBRE.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Jan. 8, 1934.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where a release is pleaded in an action at law which is claimed to have been obtained by fraud, the issue of fraud can be determined in that action, and injunctive relief in this court is improper.

2. A motion to strike out a bill seeking such injunctive relief will be sustained.

Suit by the Victor Talking Machine Company against William Caubre. On a motion to strike out the complainant's bill.

Motion granted.

Starr, Summerill & Lloyd, of Camden, for complainant.

Riggins & Davis, of Camden, for defendant.

DAVIS, Vice Chancellor.

On a motion to strike out complainant's bill, the situation presented is that the defendant was in the employ of complainant on or about January 25, 1924, as a mechanic in its plant in the city of Camden, such employment being under section 1 of the New Jersey Workmen's Compensation Act (Comp. St. Supp. § **236—1); that while so employed, defendant claimed to have received injuries, among which was the loss of his sight, and complainant agreed to pay defendant, in settlement of his claim for damages, the sum of $2,000, and to credit him with the further sum of $308.71 theretofore advanced to him, and on May 9, 1924, paid defendant $2,000 and gave him the credit; a release was signed by defendant, dated May 9, 1924. Defendant continued in the employ of complainant at various times until the month of June, 1929; prior to that time, on October 15, 1925, he brought an action at law in the common pleas court of Camden county; an answer was filed by complainant herein to the complaint in said action, to which answer defendant herein filed a reply; in March, 1926, when the action came on to be tried, a stipulation was executed by the attorneys of the respective parties and filed in the clerk's office of Camden county. Pursuant to the stipulation, a judgment of voluntary nonsuit was entered, with an agreement that such suit might be reinstated at any time by the plaintiff therein, the defendant in this cause, should the conditions which then existed change, such option to be exercised by the attorney of the defendant herein at his discretion, and waiv ing, in the event of such reinstatement, the statute of limitations as a defense to the suit, so that the same should be tried on its merits.

In October, 1931, application was made on behalf of the defendant herein to reinstate the action at law, which application was granted by a rule entered in the Camden county court of common pleas on October 23, 1931; subsequently, on application of the defendant herein, and on December 27, 1932, the judge of the said court...