Hague v. Warren

5 Citing cases

  1. In re Opper

    29 N.J. Super. 520 (App. Div. 1954)   Cited 8 times

    The expression "special circumstances" undoubtedly represents in its minimum import an effort to codify in rule form the limitation imposed by the former Court of Chancery upon itself where it had concurrent jurisdiction with another court. In Hague v. Warren, 142 N.J. Eq. 257 ( E. A. 1947), it appeared that the law court and the Court of Chancery had concurrent jurisdiction over the particular subject. The law court had already assumed jurisdiction when relief was sought in Chancery.

  2. MacPherson v. Boston Edison Co.

    336 Mass. 94 (Mass. 1957)   Cited 12 times

    The obvious objections to this type of duplication of effort lend support to the conclusion which we reach. See Hohmann v. Corkran, 100 N.J. Eq. 234, affirmed on opinion below, 102 N.J. Eq. 333; Hague v. Warren, 142 N.J. Eq. 257, 263-268. 4.

  3. Crowe v. De Gioia

    179 N.J. Super. 36 (App. Div. 1981)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Crowe v. DeGioia the Court (with one judge dissenting) reversed an order of the trial court awarding plaintiff weekly support payments pendente lite, requiring defendant to pay plaintiff's out-standing medical, dental, drug and other bills, permitting plaintiff the exclusive use of defendant's dwelling, and requiring defendant to continue to pay all costs, enjoining defendant from disposing of his assets and awarding plaintiff a counsel fee pendente lite.

    See State v. East Shores, Inc., 154 N.J. Super. 57, 64 (Ch.Div. 1977), mod. and aff'd 164 N.J. Super. 530 (App.Div. 1979); Roach v. Margulies, 42 N.J. Super. 243, 246, (App.Div. 195 6). In Hague v. Warren, 142 N.J. Eq. 257 (E. A. 1948), the court said: It is sometimes said that the grant of equitable relief is a matter of grace.

  4. Lippmann v. Hydro-Space Technology, Inc.

    77 N.J. Super. 497 (App. Div. 1962)   Cited 27 times
    Finding that a complaint which "consisted of no more than only general and entirely conclusory charges of fraud" fails to plead such material facts as necessary to state a claim upon which relief could be granted

    In other jurisdictions, including ours, the jurisdiction of equity was held still to exist although it was rarely exercised, and this because in most instances, where adequate discovery was available to a party in the law court, a court of equity would ordinarily decline to exercise its jurisdiction since the remedy at law was adequate. See Hague v. Warren, 142 N.J. Eq. 257, 260-262 ( E. A. 1948). Although Justice Heher dissented, contending that equity's jurisdiction of a pure bill for discovery was complete and relief should not be denied merely because another court could grant similar relief, he recognized that the entire problem would become moot under the new Constitution of 1947, approved only a few months before at the general election.

  5. Warren v. Hague

    11 N.J. Super. 311 (App. Div. 1951)   Cited 6 times

    The defendant's amended answer denies the libel and asserts separate defenses. After extended intervening proceedings ( Hague v. Warren, 142 N.J. Eq. 257 ( E. A. 1948)), the plaintiff in April, 1949, served notice that he would take the testimony of the defendant before trial. Rule 3:26-1.