Opinion
Argued July 14, 1952 —
Decided August 18, 1952.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division.
Appeal dismissed.
Before Judges SMALLEY, PROCTOR and HANEMAN.
Mr. J. Mortimer Rubenstein argued the cause for plaintiffs-appellants.
Mr. Sol. D. Kapelsohn argued the cause for defendants-respondents ( Messrs. Kapelsohn, Lerner, Leuchter Reitman, attorneys).
Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the trial court striking parts of the complaint relating to certain items of damage. At the oral argument we expressed the opinion that the order under review being interlocutory, the appeal was premature and should be dismissed. Rule 4:2-2. At request of plaintiffs' counsel permission was granted to file supplemental briefs on the above question.
In plaintiffs' supplemental brief it is conceded that the appeal is from an interlocutory order and does not come within the exceptions to the above rule. However, plaintiffs urge that, pursuant to Rule 4:1-10, in the interest of justice Rule 4:2-2 be relaxed and cite Scott v. Stewart, 2 N.J. 508 (1949) and Eilen v. Tappin's, Inc., 14 N.J. Super. 162 ( App. Div. 1951).
The cited cases are not applicable. In the Scott case the adjudication of the Supreme Court, in effect, terminated the litigation. In the Eilen case the trial court's order of inspection was so broad that a strict adherence thereto would have worked an injustice to the defendant. In the present case we find no justification for a departure from Rule 4:2-2.
Appeal dismissed.