Zelek v. Brosseau

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Zelek v. Brosseau

141 A.2d 17, 26 N.J. 501, 1958 N.J. LEXIS 268

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedApril 28, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 141 A.2d 17 (Zelek v. Brosseau) 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

Zelek v. Brosseau, 141 A.2d 17, 26 N.J. 501, 1958 N.J. LEXIS 268 (N.J. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

*502 Pee Curiam.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed for the reasons stated by Judge Goldmann in the Appellate Division and reported in 47 N. J. Super. 521 (1957).

A contention seriously stressed at the oral argument was that appellant is entitled to a credit on the Vermont judgment for some payments allegedly made on his behalf through the Veterans’ Administration prior to the institution of the action in that state. However, adequate notice of the suit in Vermont was given to Brosseau and the claim for credit should have been made to the appropriate tribunal there. The courts of New Jersey cannot grant such relief at this time. If, as is asserted, a fraud was practiced on the Vermont court, the remedy, if any, is in that state. We express no opinion as to the merits of the charge.

For affirmance—Chief Justice Weinteaub, and Justices Hehee, Wacheneeld, Buelihg, Jacobs, Ebancis and Pboctoe—7.

For reversal—None.

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

*502 Pee Curiam.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed for the reasons stated by Judge Goldmann in the Appellate Division and reported in 47 N. J. Super. 521 (1957).

A contention seriously stressed at the oral argument was that appellant is entitled to a credit on the Vermont judgment for some payments allegedly made on his behalf through the Veterans’ Administration prior to the institution of the action in that state. However, adequate notice of the suit in Vermont was given to Brosseau and the claim for credit should have been made to the appropriate tribunal there. The courts of New Jersey cannot grant such relief at this time. If, as is asserted, a fraud was practiced on the Vermont court, the remedy, if any, is in that state. We express no opinion as to the merits of the charge.

For affirmance—Chief Justice Weinteaub, and Justices Hehee, Wacheneeld, Buelihg, Jacobs, Ebancis and Pboctoe—7.

For reversal—None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.2d 17, 26 N.J. 501, 1958 N.J. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zelek-v-brosseau-nj-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack