Beneficial Finance Co. v. Daloisio

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Beneficial Finance Co. v. Daloisio

220 A.2d 195, 47 N.J. 263, 1966 N.J. LEXIS 213

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJune 6, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 220 A.2d 195 (Beneficial Finance Co. v. Daloisio) 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

Beneficial Finance Co. v. Daloisio, 220 A.2d 195, 47 N.J. 263, 1966 N.J. LEXIS 213 (N.J. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, holder of a wage assignment within N. J. S. A. 17:10-18, a part of the Small Loan Law, brought this action against the assignor’s employer for the sums due under the assignment. Plaintiff prevailed, and the Appellate Division affirmed. 90 N. J. Super. 80 (1966).

We agree with the Appellate Division that the statute does not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or the provisions of Art. I, ¶ 1, and Art. IV, § VII, ¶¶ 7, 8 and 9 of our State Constitution.

As to defendant’s other proposition, that the county district court is without jurisdiction of plaintiff’s claim, defendant says the Appellate Division missed the point it intended, i. e., that the assignment created only an equitable [265]*265right because the assignment is a partial one. We think a sufficient answer is that the assignee’s interest, being now established by statute, is a legal right and as such is enforceable in a court of law without the aid of the authority of the former Court of Chancery.

The judgment is affirmed.

For afkmance — Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall and Schettino. — 6.

For reversal — None.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, holder of a wage assignment within N. J. S. A. 17:10-18, a part of the Small Loan Law, brought this action against the assignor’s employer for the sums due under the assignment. Plaintiff prevailed, and the Appellate Division affirmed. 90 N. J. Super. 80 (1966).

We agree with the Appellate Division that the statute does not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or the provisions of Art. I, ¶ 1, and Art. IV, § VII, ¶¶ 7, 8 and 9 of our State Constitution.

As to defendant’s other proposition, that the county district court is without jurisdiction of plaintiff’s claim, defendant says the Appellate Division missed the point it intended, i. e., that the assignment created only an equitable [265]*265right because the assignment is a partial one. We think a sufficient answer is that the assignee’s interest, being now established by statute, is a legal right and as such is enforceable in a court of law without the aid of the authority of the former Court of Chancery.

The judgment is affirmed.

For afkmance — Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall and Schettino. — 6.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.2d 195, 47 N.J. 263, 1966 N.J. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beneficial-finance-co-v-daloisio-nj-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack