Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 N.J. Super. 476

91 A.2d 416

Bergman v. Hall

ALFRED BERGMAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MARTIN E. HALL AND TRYGVE RYDBERG, PARTNERS TRADING AS FIDELITY TOOL & MACHINE CO., AND INDIVIDUALLY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

Argued September 30, 1952.

Decided October 1, 1952.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · decided 1952-10-01

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 1956

2 state decisions

Relies on New York Ass'n for Blind v. Teeter

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1952-10-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*477 Before Judges JAYNE, PROCTOR and SCHETTINO.

¶2Mr. Mortimer Eisner argued the cause for appellant.

¶3Mr. Edward H. Backes argued the cause for respondents.

¶4The opinion of the court was delivered PER CURIAM.

¶5The plaintiff appeals from an order entered on May 16, 1952, in the Chancery Division of this court denying his motion "to compel the defendants to produce their books and accounts and records for inspection by plaintiff or his agent, and for an injunctive order restraining defendants from disposing of their assets."

¶6Initially we have ascertained that the notice of appeal was filed on May 27, 1952, 11 days after the entry of the *478 order. Rules 1:2-5(c), 4:2-5. This delinquency is jurisdictional. In re Pfizer,6 N.J. 233 (1951).

¶7However, an order granting or denying an application to inspect the books and records of a party is distinctly interlocutory in its nature and is not appealable without leave of this court first had and obtained. Rule 4:2-2(b).

¶8Assuming that the order in respect to the refusal to grant the preliminary injunction is appealable as of right (Rule 4:2-2), it too is interlocutory. Moreover it is immediately apparent that no proof was submitted to the court to warrant the imposition of the restraint desired.

¶9In any aspect of the present appeal the merits of the alleged cause of action are not properly before us for primary determination.

¶10For the foregoing reasons the order sought to be reviewed by this appeal will not be disturbed.

¶11Appeal dismissed.

/21/njsuper/476 · .json · Public domain