Loizeaux Builders Supply Co. v. Deuschle

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Loizeaux Builders Supply Co. v. Deuschle

23 A.2d 255, 127 N.J.L. 465, 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 49

DecidedDecember 26, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.2d 255 (Loizeaux Builders Supply Co. v. Deuschle) 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

Loizeaux Builders Supply Co. v. Deuschle, 23 A.2d 255, 127 N.J.L. 465, 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 49 (N.J. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

This is an appeal from the District Court from a judgment in favor of the respondent against the appellants Deuschle, on an alleged stop notice under the Mechanics’ Lien Law. The case shows the same deficiency discussed in the case of E. Bowden Company against the same defendants, 127 N. J. L. 464, namely, that there is no copy of the judgment record as required by rule 145 of this court. The statute provides (R. S. 2:32-2) “except where there is an express provision of ■ law providing otherwise, the practice and procedure in the Circuit Courts shall, in so far as applicable, apply to the District Courts.” In a Circuit Court appeal the pleadings and judgment thereon would constitute the record, and while ordinarily in a District Court there is only one pleading, namely a state of demand, that pleading is the basis of the judgment and an essential part of the record. The requirement has been pointed out many times in our decisions. Katzin v. Jenny, 74 N. J. L. 131; Hill v. Adams Express Co., Id. 338 (at p. 340); Nissel v. Swinley, Id. 344; Maccia v. Stanzione, 84 Id. 509; Galvin v. Ostrander Fire Brick Co., Id. 530, and cases cited.

Eor want of a proper state of the case the appeal will be dismissed, with costs.

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

Pee Cueiam.

This is an appeal from the District Court from a judgment in favor of the respondent against the appellants Deuschle, on an alleged stop notice under the Mechanics’ Lien Law. The case shows the same deficiency discussed in the case of E. Bowden Company against the same defendants, 127 N. J. L. 464, namely, that there is no copy of the judgment record as required by rule 145 of this court. The statute provides (R. S. 2:32-2) “except where there is an express provision of ■ law providing otherwise, the practice and procedure in the Circuit Courts shall, in so far as applicable, apply to the District Courts.” In a Circuit Court appeal the pleadings and judgment thereon would constitute the record, and while ordinarily in a District Court there is only one pleading, namely a state of demand, that pleading is the basis of the judgment and an essential part of the record. The requirement has been pointed out many times in our decisions. Katzin v. Jenny, 74 N. J. L. 131; Hill v. Adams Express Co., Id. 338 (at p. 340); Nissel v. Swinley, Id. 344; Maccia v. Stanzione, 84 Id. 509; Galvin v. Ostrander Fire Brick Co., Id. 530, and cases cited.

Eor want of a proper state of the case the appeal will be dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.2d 255, 127 N.J.L. 465, 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loizeaux-builders-supply-co-v-deuschle-nj-1941.