English rule in New Jersey

1959Women's League for Animals had suggested that Marx v. Rice, 1 N.J. 574 (1949), had overturned the earlier English doctrine that had been followed by so many of our courts.

1959Women's League for Animals had suggested that Marx v. Rice, 1 N.J. 574 (1949), had overturned the earlier English doctrine that had been followed by so many of our courts.

1933Rep. 971 ; New Hampshire, in Galloway v. Babb, 77 N.H. 259 ; Maryland, in Graham v. Whitridge, 99 Md. 248 , 289 , follow the English rule of construction.

1933Rep. 971 ; New Hampshire, in Galloway v. Babb, 77 N.H. 259 ; Maryland, in Graham v. Whitridge, 99 Md. 248 , 289 , follow the English rule of construction.

1933"In New York, in an able opinion by Sutherland, J., in the supreme court ( Slosson v. Lynch, 43 Barb. 147 ), the English doctrine and authorities are vigorously criticised and rejected in favor of the view that `next of kin' has acquired a fixed legal meaning, born of the statute, and when used without more, means `next of kin' as therein defined.

1933"In New York, in an able opinion by Sutherland, J., in the supreme court ( Slosson v. Lynch, 43 Barb. 147 ), the English doctrine and authorities are vigorously criticised and rejected in favor of the view that `next of kin' has acquired a fixed legal meaning, born of the statute, and when used without more, means `next of kin' as therein defined.

2021The chancellor in Bellisfield acknowledged the English rule applicable to the construction of instruments of writing; that if the recitals are clear and the operative part is ambiguous, the recitals govern the construction; and that if the recitals are ambiguous and the operative part is clear, the operative part must prevail; and if both the recitals and the operative part are clear, but A-2823-16 164 they are inconsistent with each other, the operative part is to be preferred. [Id. at 29-30.] He found, however, that although the operative part of the brothers' agreement might be considered c

2021The chancellor in Bellisfield acknowledged the English rule applicable to the construction of instruments of writing; that if the recitals are clear and the operative part is ambiguous, the recitals govern the construction; and that if the recitals are ambiguous and the operative part is clear, the operative part must prevail; and if both the recitals and the operative part are clear, but A-2823-16 164 they are inconsistent with each other, the operative part is to be preferred. [Id. at 29-30.] He found, however, that although the operative part of the brothers' agreement might be considered c

2008Holding Corp., 47 N.J.Super. 110, 117 , 135 A. 2d 346 (App. Div.1957) (citations omitted).] Although the English rule of immunity, from whence our doctrine derives, "affords a true, absolute privilege without regard to the relevancy of the statements to the subject matter of the proceedings[,]" New Jersey, like the majority of American jurisdictions, requires that the "defamatory matter uttered have some relation to the nature of the proceedings." Hawkins, supra, 141 N.J. at 215 , 661 A. 2d 284 (citation omitted).

2008Holding Corp., 47 N.J.Super. 110, 117 , 135 A. 2d 346 (App. Div.1957) (citations omitted).] Although the English rule of immunity, from whence our doctrine derives, "affords a true, absolute privilege without regard to the relevancy of the statements to the subject matter of the proceedings[,]" New Jersey, like the majority of American jurisdictions, requires that the "defamatory matter uttered have some relation to the nature of the proceedings." Hawkins, supra, 141 N.J. at 215 , 661 A. 2d 284 (citation omitted).

2001The Court further explained: The most likely reason that the English rule [Baker ] was adopted in this country without much question is simply that it had the blessing of age____ Such nearly automatic adoption seems at odds with the general principle, widely accepted during the early years of our Nation, that while “[o]ur ancestors brought with them [the] general principles [of the common law] and claimed it as their birthright; * * * they brought with them and adopted only that portion which was applicable to their situation.” Van Ness v. Pacard, [27 U.S.] 2 Pet. 137, 144 , 7 L.Ed. 374 (1829)

2001The Court further explained: The most likely reason that the English rule [Baker ] was adopted in this country without much question is simply that it had the blessing of age____ Such nearly automatic adoption seems at odds with the general principle, widely accepted during the early years of our Nation, that while “[o]ur ancestors brought with them [the] general principles [of the common law] and claimed it as their birthright; * * * they brought with them and adopted only that portion which was applicable to their situation.” Van Ness v. Pacard, [27 U.S.] 2 Pet. 137, 144 , 7 L.Ed. 374 (1829)

2001The Court further explained: The most likely reason that the English rule [Baker ] was adopted in this country without much question is simply that it had the blessing of age____ Such nearly automatic adoption seems at odds with the general principle, widely accepted during the early years of our Nation, that while “[o]ur ancestors brought with them [the] general principles [of the common law] and claimed it as their birthright; * * * they brought with them and adopted only that portion which was applicable to their situation.” Van Ness v. Pacard, [27 U.S.] 2 Pet. 137, 144 , 7 L.Ed. 374 (1829)

2001The Court further explained: The most likely reason that the English rule [Baker ] was adopted in this country without much question is simply that it had the blessing of age____ Such nearly automatic adoption seems at odds with the general principle, widely accepted during the early years of our Nation, that while “[o]ur ancestors brought with them [the] general principles [of the common law] and claimed it as their birthright; * * * they brought with them and adopted only that portion which was applicable to their situation.” Van Ness v. Pacard, [27 U.S.] 2 Pet. 137, 144 , 7 L.Ed. 374 (1829)

2001The Court further explained: The most likely reason that the English rule [Baker ] was adopted in this country without much question is simply that it had the blessing of age____ Such nearly automatic adoption seems at odds with the general principle, widely accepted during the early years of our Nation, that while “[o]ur ancestors brought with them [the] general principles [of the common law] and claimed it as their birthright; * * * they brought with them and adopted only that portion which was applicable to their situation.” Van Ness v. Pacard, [27 U.S.] 2 Pet. 137, 144 , 7 L.Ed. 374 (1829)

2001The Court further explained: The most likely reason that the English rule [Baker ] was adopted in this country without much question is simply that it had the blessing of age____ Such nearly automatic adoption seems at odds with the general principle, widely accepted during the early years of our Nation, that while “[o]ur ancestors brought with them [the] general principles [of the common law] and claimed it as their birthright; * * * they brought with them and adopted only that portion which was applicable to their situation.” Van Ness v. Pacard, [27 U.S.] 2 Pet. 137, 144 , 7 L.Ed. 374 (1829)

1993Iannone v. McHale, 245 N.J.Super. 17, 27 , 583 A.2d 770 (App.Div.1990).

1993Iannone v. McHale, 245 N.J.Super. 17, 27 , 583 A.2d 770 (App.Div.1990).

1990The policy decision "that sound judicial administration is best advanced if litigants bear their own counsel fees" has been recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Satellite Gateway Com. v. Musi Dining Car Co., 110 N.J. 280, 285 , 540 A. 2d 1267 (1988) (quoting State, Dept. of Envtl.

1990The policy decision "that sound judicial administration is best advanced if litigants bear their own counsel fees" has been recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Satellite Gateway Com. v. Musi Dining Car Co., 110 N.J. 280, 285 , 540 A. 2d 1267 (1988) (quoting State, Dept. of Envtl.

1990The intensity of the ongoing debate warrants an examination of what we know about the rule and its effects, and consideration of how its enforcement can be channeled to better serve its purposes. [ Ibid. ] We also point out that R. 4:42-9, precluding an award of counsel fees except in those limited circumstances expressly prescribed by rule or statute, represents a firm commitment in this jurisdiction to the principle that ordinarily litigants should bear their own counsel fees and a rejection of the so-called English rule of routinely assessing the winner's fees against the loser.

1990The intensity of the ongoing debate warrants an examination of what we know about the rule and its effects, and consideration of how its enforcement can be channeled to better serve its purposes. [ Ibid. ] We also point out that R. 4:42-9, precluding an award of counsel fees except in those limited circumstances expressly prescribed by rule or statute, represents a firm commitment in this jurisdiction to the principle that ordinarily litigants should bear their own counsel fees and a rejection of the so-called English rule of routinely assessing the winner's fees against the loser.

1982Eq. 556 (E. & A. 1873) (benefit of bargain allowed; vendor unwarrantably refused to convey and court adopted Drake rule); Drake v. Baker, 34 N.J.L. 358 (Sup.Ct. 1871), disapproved, Gerbert, 59 N.J.L. at 180-82 (benefit of bargain allowed; exceptions to English rule for willful default or known contingencies assumed, but not for unknown title defect).

1982Loss of the bargain has been approved where a seller knows he does not have title and cannot convey because of inability to acquire title, Key v. Alexander, 91 Fla. 975, 979 , 108 So. 883, 885 (1926); where seller knows of defects in title and contracts to convey, Taylor v. Barnes, 69 N.Y. 430 (1877); where seller has title and refuses to perform, Eastwood Homes, Inc. v. Hudson, 161 Cal. App. 2d 532, 542-543 , 327 P. 2d 29, 35-36 (Dist.Ct.App. 1958); Householder v. Nispel, 111 Neb. 156, 158 , 195 N.W. 932, 933 (1923). [5] In Donovan v. Bachstadt, 181 N.J.

1982Loss of the bargain has been approved where a seller knows he does not have title and cannot convey because of inability to acquire title, Key v. Alexander, 91 Fla. 975, 979 , 108 So. 883, 885 (1926); where seller knows of defects in title and contracts to convey, Taylor v. Barnes, 69 N.Y. 430 (1877); where seller has title and refuses to perform, Eastwood Homes, Inc. v. Hudson, 161 Cal. App. 2d 532, 542-543 , 327 P. 2d 29, 35-36 (Dist.Ct.App. 1958); Householder v. Nispel, 111 Neb. 156, 158 , 195 N.W. 932, 933 (1923). [5] In Donovan v. Bachstadt, 181 N.J.

1982Loss of the bargain has been approved where a seller knows he does not have title and cannot convey because of inability to acquire title, Key v. Alexander, 91 Fla. 975, 979 , 108 So. 883, 885 (1926); where seller knows of defects in title and contracts to convey, Taylor v. Barnes, 69 N.Y. 430 (1877); where seller has title and refuses to perform, Eastwood Homes, Inc. v. Hudson, 161 Cal. App. 2d 532, 542-543 , 327 P. 2d 29, 35-36 (Dist.Ct.App. 1958); Householder v. Nispel, 111 Neb. 156, 158 , 195 N.W. 932, 933 (1923). [5] In Donovan v. Bachstadt, 181 N.J.

1982Loss of the bargain has been approved where a seller knows he does not have title and cannot convey because of inability to acquire title, Key v. Alexander, 91 Fla. 975, 979 , 108 So. 883, 885 (1926); where seller knows of defects in title and contracts to convey, Taylor v. Barnes, 69 N.Y. 430 (1877); where seller has title and refuses to perform, Eastwood Homes, Inc. v. Hudson, 161 Cal. App. 2d 532, 542-543 , 327 P. 2d 29, 35-36 (Dist.Ct.App. 1958); Householder v. Nispel, 111 Neb. 156, 158 , 195 N.W. 932, 933 (1923). [5] In Donovan v. Bachstadt, 181 N.J.

1977The so-called English rule found early acceptance in New Jersey and has been reaffirmed recently in Penwag Property Co. v. Landau, supra , wherein the court observed: This essential element of proof of special grievance connotes damage different from and beyond the expenses and counsel fees entailed in the defense of the civil suit.

1977The so-called English rule found early acceptance in New Jersey and has been reaffirmed recently in Penwag Property Co. v. Landau, supra , wherein the court observed: This essential element of proof of special grievance connotes damage different from and beyond the expenses and counsel fees entailed in the defense of the civil suit.

1971Miller v. Clary, 210 N.Y. 127 , 103 N.E. 1114 (Ct. App. 1913).

1971Miller v. Clary, 210 N.Y. 127 , 103 N.E. 1114 (Ct. App. 1913).

1966The Legislature has incorporated this court doctrine in the Right to Know Law: "* * * public records shall be readily accessible * * * with certain exceptions, for the protection of the public interest." The early case of Ferry v. Williams, 41 N.J.L. 332 , ( Sup. Ct. 1879), applied the English rule that every person is entitled to the inspection of public documents, provided he shows the requisite interest therein.

1966The Legislature has incorporated this court doctrine in the Right to Know Law: "* * * public records shall be readily accessible * * * with certain exceptions, for the protection of the public interest." The early case of Ferry v. Williams, 41 N.J.L. 332 , ( Sup. Ct. 1879), applied the English rule that every person is entitled to the inspection of public documents, provided he shows the requisite interest therein.

1966Stickel v. Douglass, 7 N.J. 274 (1951).

1966Stickel v. Douglass, 7 N.J. 274 (1951).

1962In McCracken v. Gulick, 92 N.J.

1962In McCracken v. Gulick, 92 N.J.

1958This rule rests upon the fact that conveyors normally use `issue' as substantially the equivalent of `heirs of the body,' and seldom desire the inequalities between stirpes which were unavoidable under the earlier English rule. * * *" The movement is decidedly away from the English approach, In re Mayhew's Estate, 307 Pa. 84 , 160 A. 724 , 83 A.L.R. 149 ( Sup. Ct. 1932); note, 7 Newark L.

1958This rule rests upon the fact that conveyors normally use `issue' as substantially the equivalent of `heirs of the body,' and seldom desire the inequalities between stirpes which were unavoidable under the earlier English rule. * * *" The movement is decidedly away from the English approach, In re Mayhew's Estate, 307 Pa. 84 , 160 A. 724 , 83 A.L.R. 149 ( Sup. Ct. 1932); note, 7 Newark L.

1957The United States Supreme Court stated the English rule on the sovereign ownership of submerged lands in Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 11 , 14 S.Ct. 548, 551 , 38 L.Ed. 331 (1894): "By the common law, both the title and the dominion of the sea, and of rivers and arms of the sea, where the tide ebbs and flows, and of all the lands below highwater mark, within the jurisdiction of the Crown of England, are in the King.

1957The United States Supreme Court stated the English rule on the sovereign ownership of submerged lands in Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 11 , 14 S.Ct. 548, 551 , 38 L.Ed. 331 (1894): "By the common law, both the title and the dominion of the sea, and of rivers and arms of the sea, where the tide ebbs and flows, and of all the lands below highwater mark, within the jurisdiction of the Crown of England, are in the King.

1957LaPorta v. Leonard, supra .

1957LaPorta v. Leonard, supra .

1956Compare Lovett v. Borough of Keyport, supra [ 133 N.J.L. 122 ( E. & A. 1945)]; Olesiewicz v. City of Camden, supra [ 100 N.J.L. 336 ( E. & A. 1924)]; Cochran v. Public Service Electric Co., supra [ 97 N.J.L. 480 ( E. & A. 1922)]." The opinion in Milstrey proceeds in the next sentence to contrast the New Jersey rule with the English rule on this point: "In England, local governmental agencies are now deemed liable under common-law principles for the misfeasance of its servant. *59 although not for his nonfeasance.

1956Compare Lovett v. Borough of Keyport, supra [ 133 N.J.L. 122 ( E. & A. 1945)]; Olesiewicz v. City of Camden, supra [ 100 N.J.L. 336 ( E. & A. 1924)]; Cochran v. Public Service Electric Co., supra [ 97 N.J.L. 480 ( E. & A. 1922)]." The opinion in Milstrey proceeds in the next sentence to contrast the New Jersey rule with the English rule on this point: "In England, local governmental agencies are now deemed liable under common-law principles for the misfeasance of its servant. *59 although not for his nonfeasance.