Pivonski v. Albert

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Pivonski v. Albert

1 A.2d 67, 120 N.J.L. 527, 1938 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 164

DecidedAugust 11, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.2d 67 (Pivonski v. Albert) 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

Pivonski v. Albert, 1 A.2d 67, 120 N.J.L. 527, 1938 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 164 (N.J. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant moves for a rule to show cause why the venue should not be changed from Union county, where the plaintiff resides, to Mercer county, where the defendant resides. The same application was made to Mr. Justice Trenchard and was denied by him with permission, however, to renew the application before the court en banc.

Only two reasons are argued: Eirst, that the plaintiff is an assignees for convenience, without interest, and that the real party in interest is a non-resident; second, that defendant’s witnesses reside in the county of Mercer.

Defendant suggests no means by which a person with a cause of action may be prevented from assigning it, even though the assignment be for the purpose of bringing suit. See Daniels v. Watson, 11 N. J. Mis. R. 181. Whether nominal or otherwise, Helen Pivonski is the plaintiff in the action and she resides in Union county. No fraud is shown. No prejudice to the defendant is made apparent. No proof is placed before us whereby the necessity upon the defendant of bringing his witnesses to Elizabeth will, under all the circumstances of the case, be an injustice.

The argument is largely based upon apprehension that the practice of making assignments of causes of action by non *529 residents may be prejudicial to the rights of resident defendants. When circumvention of justice becomes the object or may be the result, the courts will meet the question. That question is not now before us.

The application is denied, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant moves for a rule to show cause why the venue should not be changed from Union county, where the plaintiff resides, to Mercer county, where the defendant resides. The same application was made to Mr. Justice Trenchard and was denied by him with permission, however, to renew the application before the court en banc.

Only two reasons are argued: Eirst, that the plaintiff is an assignees for convenience, without interest, and that the real party in interest is a non-resident; second, that defendant’s witnesses reside in the county of Mercer.

Defendant suggests no means by which a person with a cause of action may be prevented from assigning it, even though the assignment be for the purpose of bringing suit. See Daniels v. Watson, 11 N. J. Mis. R. 181. Whether nominal or otherwise, Helen Pivonski is the plaintiff in the action and she resides in Union county. No fraud is shown. No prejudice to the defendant is made apparent. No proof is placed before us whereby the necessity upon the defendant of bringing his witnesses to Elizabeth will, under all the circumstances of the case, be an injustice.

The argument is largely based upon apprehension that the practice of making assignments of causes of action by non *529 residents may be prejudicial to the rights of resident defendants. When circumvention of justice becomes the object or may be the result, the courts will meet the question. That question is not now before us.

The application is denied, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.2d 67, 120 N.J.L. 527, 1938 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pivonski-v-albert-nj-1938.