Trenton Jockey Club v. Hamid Realty Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Trenton Jockey Club v. Hamid Realty Co.

51 A.2d 869, 135 N.J.L. 343, 1947 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 145

DecidedMarch 27, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.2d 869 (Trenton Jockey Club v. Hamid Realty Co.) 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

Trenton Jockey Club v. Hamid Realty Co., 51 A.2d 869, 135 N.J.L. 343, 1947 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 145 (N.J. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a plaintiff’s motion to vacate a rule signed by Mr. Justice Eastwood, at that time a Circuit Court Judge and signed by him in his capacity as a Supreme Court Commissioner ex officio, which rule directed that the plaintiff’s judgment of non pros on the defendants’ counter-claim be opened, and that the defendants may file an appropriate pleading to the answer to counter-claim within ten days.

The record is rather confused, particularly as only a part of it is printed. The complaint is not printed, neither is the answer. The printed book begins with the counter-claim, which is in three counts, and is followed by the answer to the counter-claim, which is seven pages long.

The controversy seems to relate in general to a lease of the buildings and grounds at Trenton used for the New Jersey State Fair. As stated at the opening of these remarks, the only question to be decided at this time is whether the Circuit Court Judge, in his capacity as a Supreme Court Commissioner, had jurisdiction under the statutes and practice to open the default judgment of non pros. We consider that he did have jurisdiction under the amendment of May 15th, 1943, amending rule 94, which amendment specifically adds to rule 94 the power of a Circuit. Court Judge acting as Commissioner in relation to “opening of default judgments.”

It seems reasonably clear that the amendment applies to the situation in this ease, which was a judgment of non pros directed to a counter-claim filed by the defendants. We consider that that judgment is within the purview of the rule.

The motion to vacate the rule is therefore denied.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a plaintiff’s motion to vacate a rule signed by Mr. Justice Eastwood, at that time a Circuit Court Judge and signed by him in his capacity as a Supreme Court Commissioner ex officio, which rule directed that the plaintiff’s judgment of non pros on the defendants’ counter-claim be opened, and that the defendants may file an appropriate pleading to the answer to counter-claim within ten days.

The record is rather confused, particularly as only a part of it is printed. The complaint is not printed, neither is the answer. The printed book begins with the counter-claim, which is in three counts, and is followed by the answer to the counter-claim, which is seven pages long.

The controversy seems to relate in general to a lease of the buildings and grounds at Trenton used for the New Jersey State Fair. As stated at the opening of these remarks, the only question to be decided at this time is whether the Circuit Court Judge, in his capacity as a Supreme Court Commissioner, had jurisdiction under the statutes and practice to open the default judgment of non pros. We consider that he did have jurisdiction under the amendment of May 15th, 1943, amending rule 94, which amendment specifically adds to rule 94 the power of a Circuit. Court Judge acting as Commissioner in relation to “opening of default judgments.”

It seems reasonably clear that the amendment applies to the situation in this ease, which was a judgment of non pros directed to a counter-claim filed by the defendants. We consider that that judgment is within the purview of the rule.

The motion to vacate the rule is therefore denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.2d 869, 135 N.J.L. 343, 1947 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trenton-jockey-club-v-hamid-realty-co-nj-1947.