LePore v. DeMeester

Supreme Court of New Jersey

LePore v. DeMeester

147 A. 863, 7 N.J. Misc. 1110, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 18

DecidedDecember 13, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A. 863 (LePore v. DeMeester) 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

LePore v. DeMeester, 147 A. 863, 7 N.J. Misc. 1110, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 18 (N.J. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

The plaintiff brought suit to recover for professional services. The trial resulted in a judgment of $1,500. The ground upon which we are asked to make this rule absolute is that the defendant has a just and legal defense to the action, and that through error and misunderstanding he was deprived of the opportunity to defend.

It appears from the proofs that the counsel to whom the defense was entrusted was misinformed as to the position of the case upon the calendar by an inadvertent mistake of his managing clerk.

We are of the opinion that the judgment should be opened in so far as it is necessary to permit a new trial. The plaintiff may hold his judgment as security to abide the outcome of the new trial. In all other respects the rule will be made absolute.

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

Pee Cueiam.

The plaintiff brought suit to recover for professional services. The trial resulted in a judgment of $1,500. The ground upon which we are asked to make this rule absolute is that the defendant has a just and legal defense to the action, and that through error and misunderstanding he was deprived of the opportunity to defend.

It appears from the proofs that the counsel to whom the defense was entrusted was misinformed as to the position of the case upon the calendar by an inadvertent mistake of his managing clerk.

We are of the opinion that the judgment should be opened in so far as it is necessary to permit a new trial. The plaintiff may hold his judgment as security to abide the outcome of the new trial. In all other respects the rule will be made absolute.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A. 863, 7 N.J. Misc. 1110, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lepore-v-demeester-nj-1929.