Kuzma v. Millinery Workers Union Local No. 24

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Kuzma v. Millinery Workers Union Local No. 24

91 A.2d 108, 21 N.J. Super. 166, 1952 N.J. Super. LEXIS 779

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedAugust 18, 1952

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A.2d 108 (Kuzma v. Millinery Workers Union Local No. 24) 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

Kuzma v. Millinery Workers Union Local No. 24, 91 A.2d 108, 21 N.J. Super. 166, 1952 N.J. Super. LEXIS 779 (N.J. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Ctjeiam.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the trial court striking parts of the complaint relating to certain items [167]*167of damage. At the oral argument we expressed the opinion that the order under review being interlocutory, the appeal was premature and should be dismissed. Buie 4:2-2. At request of plaintiffs’ counsel permission was granted to file supplemental briefs on the above question.

In plaintiffs’ supplemental brief it is conceded that the appeal is from an interlocutory order and does not come within the exceptions to the above rule. However, plaintiffs urge that, pursuant to Buie 4:1-10, in the interest of justice Buie 4:2—2 he relaxed and cite Scott v. Stewart, 2 N. J. 508 (1949) and Eilen v. Tappin's, Inc., 14 N. J. Super. 162 (App. Div. 1951).

The cited eases are not applicable. In the Scott case the adjudication of the Supreme Court, in effect, terminated the litigation. In the Mien case the trial court’s order of inspection was so broad that a strict adherence thereto would have worked an injustice to the defendant. In the present case we find no justification for a departure from Buie 4:2-2.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Pee Ctjeiam.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the trial court striking parts of the complaint relating to certain items [167]*167of damage. At the oral argument we expressed the opinion that the order under review being interlocutory, the appeal was premature and should be dismissed. Buie 4:2-2. At request of plaintiffs’ counsel permission was granted to file supplemental briefs on the above question.

In plaintiffs’ supplemental brief it is conceded that the appeal is from an interlocutory order and does not come within the exceptions to the above rule. However, plaintiffs urge that, pursuant to Buie 4:1-10, in the interest of justice Buie 4:2—2 he relaxed and cite Scott v. Stewart, 2 N. J. 508 (1949) and Eilen v. Tappin's, Inc., 14 N. J. Super. 162 (App. Div. 1951).

The cited eases are not applicable. In the Scott case the adjudication of the Supreme Court, in effect, terminated the litigation. In the Mien case the trial court’s order of inspection was so broad that a strict adherence thereto would have worked an injustice to the defendant. In the present case we find no justification for a departure from Buie 4:2-2.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.2d 108, 21 N.J. Super. 166, 1952 N.J. Super. LEXIS 779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kuzma-v-millinery-workers-union-local-no-24-njsuperctappdiv-1952.