Zinkerman v. Taft Stores
Decision Date | 22 April 1954 |
Docket Number | No. A--159,A--159 |
Citation | 104 A.2d 617,30 N.J.Super. 322 |
Parties | ZINKERMAN v. TAFT STORES, Inc. . Appellate Division |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Simon J. Griffinger, Newark, argued the cause for appellant.
Louis J. Pantages, Newark, argued the cause for respondent (Cox & Walburg, Newark, attorneys).
Before Judges EASTWOOD, JAYNE and CLAPP.
The opinion of the court was delivered by JAYNE, J.A.D.
In undertaking the consideration of the present appeal it is imperative initially to realize that where a stenographic record of the evidence and of the essential characteristics of the trial has not been taken in the district court, our appellate survey of the case is necessarily confined to the statement of the proceedings settled by the trial judge pursuant to R.R. 1:6--3; R.R. 2:6. Bancroft Realty Co. v. Alencewicz, 7 N.J.Super. 105, 72 A.2d 360 (App.Div.1950); Bayuk v. Feldman, 11 N.J.Super. 317, 78 A.2d 282 (App.Div.1951), certification denied, 6 N.J. 615, 80 A.2d 147 (1951); State v. Goldberg, 12 N.J.Super. 293, 79 A.2d 702 (App.Div.1951); Hopper's, Inc. v. Red Bank Airport, Inc., 15 N.J.Super. 349, 83 A.2d 457 (App.Div.1951); Goldman v. Shapiro, 16 N.J.Super. 324, 84 A.2d 628 (App.Div.1951); Cherr v. Rubenstein, 22 N.J.Super. 212, 91 A.2d 627 (App.Div.1952); Gretowski v. Hall Motor Express, 25 N.J.Super. 192, 95 A.2d 759 (App.Div.1953).
Accordingly, our information is derived from the statement in lieu of record authenticated by the judge of the Essex County District Court, the transcendent portion of which reads:
A final judgment accordant with the motion of the plaintiff's attorney was entered dismissing the action with prejudice. It is from this final judgment that the plaintiff specifically appeals.
Nevertheless counsel for the plaintiff endeavors by means of the present appeal to have us determine the propriety of the intermediate adjudication of the judge relative to the contumacious conduct of the plaintiff which occurred during the progress of the trial on November 4, 1953. Assuredly the county district court is empowered to punish for contempt committed In facie curiae. N.J.S. 2A:10--7, N.J.S.A.; Fulop, District and Municipal Courts (17 N.J.Practice) § 17, p. 11 and § 1272, p. 708. Manifestly we are neither able nor empowered to do so. The order, if any, adjudicating the contempt, reciting the facts, signed by the judge and entered of record is not reproduced in the transcript. R.R. 4:87--1; 5:2--1, 7:1--3. The facts upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Infante v. Gottesman
...95 L.Ed. 638 (1950); Cooper Medical Center v. Boyd, 179 N.J.Super. 53, 56, 430 A.2d 261 (App.Div.1981); Zinkerman v. Taft Stores, 30 N.J.Super. 322, 324, 104 A.2d 617 (App.Div.1954). Finally, plaintiff cannot appeal from the summary judgment order with respect to the claims for services on ......
-
Mack Auto Imports, Inc. v. Jaguar Cars, Inc.
...255, 74 A.2d 406 (1950) (an order consented to by the attorneys for each party is not appealable) and Zinkerman v. Taft Stores, 30 N.J.Super. 322, 324, 104 A.2d 617 (App.Div.1954) (consent judgment of dismissal with prejudice entered upon plaintiff's application is not appealable). See also......