Frytez v. Gruchacz
This text of 17 A.2d 541 (Frytez v. Gruchacz) 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.
Opinion
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The appeal is from a judgment of nonsuit entered pursuant to N. J. S. A. 2:27-215. We find no abuse of discretion. Stein v. Goodenough, 73 N. J. L. 812.
An action was commenced in November, 1926, to recover on a note of April 23d, 1923, and for money advanced to the defendant during the years 1922 to 1925. Nothing seems to have been done in this cause till a default judgment was entered in 1939. This judgment was vacated and the service of a summons set aside. An earlier suit for the same cause of action was then discovered, and it is claimed that a notice of trial was then served on the defendant, her attorney being *631 dead. The plaintiff’s attorney had not notified the defendant to employ an attorney. N. J. S. A. 2:20-6. It is not necessary, however, to decide whether that step should have been taken since the trial judge has entire control of his calendars, and we do not think a cause so long delayed in prosecution should have a place in the court.
The judgment is affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chancellob, Paekeb, Case, Bodine, Donges, Poetee, Deae, Wells, Raffeety, JJ'. 9.
For reversal — Ti-ie Chief Justice, Hbilee, Pebsiue, WolfsKbil, Hague, JJ. 5.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
17 A.2d 541, 125 N.J.L. 630, 1941 N.J. LEXIS 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frytez-v-gruchacz-nj-1941.