Opinion
11-04-1933
TRUST CO. OF NEW JERSEY v. BIDDLE et al.
Walscheid & Rosenkranz, of Jersey City, for complainant. William G. McLoughlin, of New York City (L. Edward Herrmann, of Jersey City, of counsel), for defendant A. Graham Biddle.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A decree entered in the Court of Chancery on remittitur from the Court of Errors and Appeals, must strictly conform to the judgment of said court as manifested by the remittitur, neither adding to, or in any way modifying, the same.
2. When application is made for a decree on remittitur from the Court of Errors and Appeals, the Court of Chancery cannot allow any amendments of pleadings in the cause, cannot amend the record by a construction of the opinion of the Court of Errors and Appeals, and cannot in any wise evade, impede, or thwart the mandate of the remittitur.
Bill of interpleader by the Trust Company of New Jersey against A. Graham Biddle and another. On application by complainant for entry of decree of reversal on remittitur from the Court of Errors and Appeals (112 N. J. Eq. 347, 164 A. 583).
Decree in accordance with opinion.
Walscheid & Rosenkranz, of Jersey City, for complainant.
William G. McLoughlin, of New York City (L. Edward Herrmann, of Jersey City, of counsel), for defendant A. Graham Biddle.
FALLON, Vice Chancellor.
A decree was entered in this court on January 18, 1932, dismissing complainant's bill of interpleader. The complainant appealed therefrom to the Court of Errors and Appeals, which reversed said decree. 112 N. J. Eq. 347, 164 A. 583. The matter is now before this court on application of counsel for complainant for a decree on the remittitur entered in the Court of Errors and Appeals which has been transmitted to this court. The solicitors of complainant, having given notice to the solicitor of the defendant A. Graham Biddle of application for a decree to be entered in this court to carry into effect the judgment of reversal by the Court of Errors and Appeals, served therewith a copy of complainant's proposed decree, to which the solicitor of said defendant interposed objections, and sought to have this court include in the decree now to be made matter which would substantially affect the effect of the judgment of the appellate court. It is the clear duty of this court to strictly comply with the mandate of the Court of Errors and Appeals. It has been repeatedly held that, when the Court of Errors and Appeals, after reversing a decree of this court, orders a decree to be entered in this court in accordance with its judgment of reversal, and remits the record of its judgment, this court has no authority to allow any amendments of pleadings in the cause or to amend the record by a construction of the opinion of said court, and must not attempt in any way to evade, impede, or thwart the mandate of said court.
In Benjamin Klein, as Receiver, etc., v. Journal Square Bank Building Company et al.,—A.—, I stated: "In my judgment the Court of Chancery has no authority in the premises other than to observe the mandate of the Court of Errors and Appeals predicated upon its remittitur. * * *" See Hale v. Lawrence, 22 N. J. Law, 72; Howe v. Lawrence, 22 N. J. Law, 99; Turtle v. Gilmore, 42 N. J. Eq. 369, 7 A. 859; Dringer v. Receiver of Erie Railway, 42 N. J. Eq. 573, 8 A 811, affirmed Dringer v. Jewett, 43 N. J. Eq. 701, 13 A. 664; Jewett v. Dringer, 31 N. J. Eq. 586; McGrail v. McGrail, 51 N. J. Eq. 537, 539, 26 A. 705; In re Wheaton's Will (N. J. Err. & App.) 67 A. 187; Lake v. Weaver, 77 N. J. Eq. 100, 75 A. 906; Dewey Land Company v. Stevens, 85 N. J. Eq. 374, 96 A. 362; Lincoln Materials Co. v. John R. Blair Co., 109 N. J. Eq. 159, 156 A. 634.