Weinstein v. Blanchard

• Citation: 152 A. 787
• Parties: WEINSTEIN v. BLANCHARD.
• Decision Date: 23 December 1930
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

152 A. 787

WEINSTEIN

v. BLANCHARD.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Dec. 23, 1930.

Action by Murray Weinstein against Oliver R. Blanchard. On plaintiff's motion to strike out a plea puis darrein continuance. Motion granted.

Stein, McGlynn & Hannoch, of Newark, for the motion.

Edwards, Smith & Dawson, of Jersey City, opposed.

BROWN, S. C. C.

The question to be decided in this case arises on plaintiff's motion to strike out a plea puis darrein continuance. In October, 1928, the plaintiff brought suit to recover damages from the defendant alleging negligence in an operation performed on the plaintiff on August 10, 1909, and negligent treatment thereafter, which alleged negligence the plaintiff claims resulted in serious injury to him and caused a continuing injury to the present time. The plaintiff further charged that the defendant fraudulently concealed the existence of a rubber tube in the body of the plaintiff until the 7th day of July, 1928, which tube it is claimed was used by the defendant in his treatment of the plaintiff. The complaint also contains a count alleging breach of contract, up to the 21st day of July, 1928, on the part of the defendant in operating upon and caring for the plaintiff. The defendant in his answer denied all the material allegations in the complaint and pleaded the statute of limitations as a bar to the action. The plaintiff filed a bill in the Court of Chancery seeking to enjoin the defendant from pleading the statute of limitations as a defense to the action at law alleging in the bill of complaint that the defendant performed the operation and continued treatment thereafter, and that the plaintiff or his representatives questioned the defendant in regard to the missing tube, and that the defendant "falsely" represented to the plaintiff, or his representatives, that the tube was not in the plaintiff's body, and that, if it was, it would cause no ill. effects.

The only purpose of the bill filed in the Court of Chancery was to obtain equitable relief by way of injunction to restrain the defendant from setting up the statute of limitations as a bar to the action at law on the ground of alleged fraud. "The case in Chancery came on for a final hearing, and that court dismissed the bill by a decree containing no other determination of facts than, "it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for * * * it is * * * ordered, adjudged and decreed that said bill of complaint be dismissed." Upon the filing of this decree the defendant was permitted to file a plea puis darrein continuance, subject to the plaintiff's motion to strike. In his plea the defendant alleges the decree in Chancery was a determination on the merits of the issues raised in the action at law; that the decree is a bar to such action and the plaintiff is estopped from further proceeding with his case in this court. Prom the proofs furnished on this motion it is apparent the Court of Chancery did not determine the issues raised in the action at law, but denied to the plaintiff the injunctive relief which that court alone can give. Savage v. Edgar, 85 N. J. Eq. page 424, 97 A. 164. The jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery was invoked not to try the issues of the action in the...