Aladdin Oil Burner Corp. v. Morton

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Aladdin Oil Burner Corp. v. Morton

187 A. 350, 117 N.J.L. 260, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 431

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedOctober 9, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 187 A. 350 (Aladdin Oil Burner Corp. v. Morton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aladdin Oil Burner Corp. v. Morton, 187 A. 350, 117 N.J.L. 260, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 431 (N.J. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Heher, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover the price of an oil burner sold and delivered to defendant under a contract which conditioned defendant’s liability for the purchase price upon a “reasonable satisfaction” with the equipment. The latter disaffirmed under this clause. The District Court judge, sitting without a jury, rendered judgment for the defendant.

The state of the case exhibits issues of fact; and in this situation it was error for the judge, at the close of the case, to deny the right of summation asserted by appellant. This constituted an arbitrary deprivation of an absolute right, inherent in our system of trial procedure, rather than the exercise of a discretionary authority, reviewable only in the event of abuse — the right, of the very essence of the right of hearing answering the requirement of due process, to present an analysis of the evidence and the inferences claimed to be deducible therefrom to the trier of the facts, be that tribunal the judge or a jury. It is, of course, subject to reasonable limitation in the exercise of a sound discretion. Compare Sullivan v. State, 46 N. J. L. 446; affirmed, 47 Id. 151; Lees v. Macchie, 11 N. J. Mis. R. 245; 2 R. C. L. 405. But limitation necessarily connotes the existence of this primary right. The informality of procedure permissible in District Court proceedings does not comprehend the deprivation of an essential right such as this. That tribunal’s findings of fact on conflicting evidence are not reviewable on appeal.

The judgment is accordingly reversed, and the record remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion; costs to abide the event.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Heher, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover the price of an oil burner sold and delivered to defendant under a contract which conditioned defendant’s liability for the purchase price upon a “reasonable satisfaction” with the equipment. The latter disaffirmed under this clause. The District Court judge, sitting without a jury, rendered judgment for the defendant.

The state of the case exhibits issues of fact; and in this situation it was error for the judge, at the close of the case, to deny the right of summation asserted by appellant. This constituted an arbitrary deprivation of an absolute right, inherent in our system of trial procedure, rather than the exercise of a discretionary authority, reviewable only in the event of abuse — the right, of the very essence of the right of hearing answering the requirement of due process, to present an analysis of the evidence and the inferences claimed to be deducible therefrom to the trier of the facts, be that tribunal the judge or a jury. It is, of course, subject to reasonable limitation in the exercise of a sound discretion. Compare Sullivan v. State, 46 N. J. L. 446; affirmed, 47 Id. 151; Lees v. Macchie, 11 N. J. Mis. R. 245; 2 R. C. L. 405. But limitation necessarily connotes the existence of this primary right. The informality of procedure permissible in District Court proceedings does not comprehend the deprivation of an essential right such as this. That tribunal’s findings of fact on conflicting evidence are not reviewable on appeal.

The judgment is accordingly reversed, and the record remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion; costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A. 350, 117 N.J.L. 260, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aladdin-oil-burner-corp-v-morton-nj-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack