James F. Mitchell, Inc. v. v. F. Zahodiakin Engineering Corp.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

James F. Mitchell, Inc. v. v. F. Zahodiakin Engineering Corp.

61 A.2d 287, 137 N.J.L. 660, 1948 N.J. LEXIS 344

DecidedSeptember 3, 1948

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.2d 287 (James F. Mitchell, Inc. v. v. F. Zahodiakin Engineering Corp.) 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

James F. Mitchell, Inc. v. v. F. Zahodiakin Engineering Corp., 61 A.2d 287, 137 N.J.L. 660, 1948 N.J. LEXIS 344 (N.J. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

James F. Mitchell, Inc., brought suit against the defendant corporation seeking damages in the amount of $68,477.41. The defendant counter-claimed for $250,000 and issue was joined. As complicated accounts were involved, an order of reference was made to a Supreme Court Commissioner. Upon the coming in of the report of the Supreme Court Commissioner, a jury trial was had; that right having been reserved. The jury, returned a verdict in the sum of $29,000 together with interest amounting to $7,540. The Circuit Court Judge allowed the sum of $5,000 to the Supreme Court Commissioner acting as referee, and taxed that sum, together with $1,10 7.50 stenographic costs incurred in the hearings before the referee, against the judgment debtor. The appellant argues that the court erred in taxing the referee’s allowance and stenographic costs against the defendant. B. S. 2:27-183 empowers the court so to do.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

‘ For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Colie, Waci-tenfeld, Eastwood, Burling, Jacobs, Wells, Dill, Freund, McLean, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

James F. Mitchell, Inc., brought suit against the defendant corporation seeking damages in the amount of $68,477.41. The defendant counter-claimed for $250,000 and issue was joined. As complicated accounts were involved, an order of reference was made to a Supreme Court Commissioner. Upon the coming in of the report of the Supreme Court Commissioner, a jury trial was had; that right having been reserved. The jury, returned a verdict in the sum of $29,000 together with interest amounting to $7,540. The Circuit Court Judge allowed the sum of $5,000 to the Supreme Court Commissioner acting as referee, and taxed that sum, together with $1,10 7.50 stenographic costs incurred in the hearings before the referee, against the judgment debtor. The appellant argues that the court erred in taxing the referee’s allowance and stenographic costs against the defendant. B. S. 2:27-183 empowers the court so to do.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

‘ For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Colie, Waci-tenfeld, Eastwood, Burling, Jacobs, Wells, Dill, Freund, McLean, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.2d 287, 137 N.J.L. 660, 1948 N.J. LEXIS 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-f-mitchell-inc-v-v-f-zahodiakin-engineering-corp-nj-1948.