In Re Kellner

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

In Re Kellner

183 A. 298, 119 N.J. Eq. 593, 18 Backes 593, 1936 N.J. Prerog. Ct. LEXIS 9

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedFebruary 14, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 183 A. 298 (In Re Kellner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Kellner, 183 A. 298, 119 N.J. Eq. 593, 18 Backes 593, 1936 N.J. Prerog. Ct. LEXIS 9 (N.J. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

The surrogate of Essex county denied the petition of Jane Kellner to vacate the probate of the will of William H. Kellner, deceased. Thereafter, on a petition suggesting that new evidence might be produced as a basis for revoking the probate, the surrogate ordered that there be a "rehearing and reargument" on Miss Kellner's petition and that the newly discovered evidence to be adduced, should be confined to the facts alleged in the last petition. From this order, an appeal is taken. The respondent moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order is not appealable.

Chief-Justice Beasley, in Camden and Amboy Railroad, c., Co. v. Stewart, 21 N.J. Eq. 484, said: "All persons will probably admit that an order which does not, in any degree, reach to the merits of the controversy or affect the substantial rights of a litigant, does not belong to the appealable class of orders."

To the same effect are Garr v. Hill, 5 N.J. Eq. 639,Attorney-General v. Paterson, 9 N.J. Eq. 624, 630; Coryell *Page 594 v. Holcombe, Idem 650, and Read v. Huff, 40 N.J. Eq. 229. In Stevens' Ex'x v. Stevens' Ex'rs, 24 N.J. Eq. 574, it is said that among the class of orders which are not appealable, "are all the ordinary orders made in the progress of the suit for the purpose of putting the case fairly at issue, obtaining the requisite evidence and affording the parties a hearing." And inIn re Doland, 69 N.J. Eq. 802, it was decided that an order of the orphans court for an attachment in contempt issue, although it had the effect of determining that the appellant was apparently guilty, was not subject to appeal because it did not finally determine the question of her guilt but left it open until a further hearing.

The order before me determines nothing; it does not annul the probate or vacate the order dismissing Miss Kellner's first petition. It does not affect the rights of any party or touch the merits of the controversy which is whether the probate was fraudulent.

The appeal will be dismissed. *Page 595

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

The surrogate of Essex county denied the petition of Jane Kellner to vacate the probate of the will of William H. Kellner, deceased. Thereafter, on a petition suggesting that new evidence might be produced as a basis for revoking the probate, the surrogate ordered that there be a "rehearing and reargument" on Miss Kellner's petition and that the newly discovered evidence to be adduced, should be confined to the facts alleged in the last petition. From this order, an appeal is taken. The respondent moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order is not appealable.

Chief-Justice Beasley, in Camden and Amboy Railroad, c., Co. v. Stewart, 21 N.J. Eq. 484, said: "All persons will probably admit that an order which does not, in any degree, reach to the merits of the controversy or affect the substantial rights of a litigant, does not belong to the appealable class of orders."

To the same effect are Garr v. Hill, 5 N.J. Eq. 639,Attorney-General v. Paterson, 9 N.J. Eq. 624, 630; Coryell *Page 594 v. Holcombe, Idem 650, and Read v. Huff, 40 N.J. Eq. 229. In Stevens' Ex'x v. Stevens' Ex'rs, 24 N.J. Eq. 574, it is said that among the class of orders which are not appealable, "are all the ordinary orders made in the progress of the suit for the purpose of putting the case fairly at issue, obtaining the requisite evidence and affording the parties a hearing." And inIn re Doland, 69 N.J. Eq. 802, it was decided that an order of the orphans court for an attachment in contempt issue, although it had the effect of determining that the appellant was apparently guilty, was not subject to appeal because it did not finally determine the question of her guilt but left it open until a further hearing.

The order before me determines nothing; it does not annul the probate or vacate the order dismissing Miss Kellner's first petition. It does not affect the rights of any party or touch the merits of the controversy which is whether the probate was fraudulent.

The appeal will be dismissed. *Page 595

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A. 298, 119 N.J. Eq. 593, 18 Backes 593, 1936 N.J. Prerog. Ct. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kellner-njsuperctappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack