Case ID: nj-eq_118/html/0586-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Berry, V. C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Norman Meranus, complainant, v. Lawyers’ and Homemakers’ Building and Loan Association, defendant.
    [Decided September 13th, 1935.]
    
      Mr. Israel B. Greene, for the motion.
    
      Messrs. Breclcer •& Preclcer (Mr. Otto A. Stiefel, of counsel), contra.
    
   Berry, V. C.

Subsequent to the filing of this court’s opinion in the above cause (116 N. J. Eq. 402) defendant applied for reargument of its motion to strike the bill. Pending disposition thereof Broadman v. Colonial Building and Loan Association, 118 N. J. Eq. 275, was decided by the court of errors and appeals. That decision prompted defendant to renew its motion to strike.

The original opinion of this court referred to the bill of complaint as one in the nature of a bill of review. Under the Broadman Oas'e, it is apparent that the court of errors and appeals will under no circumstances permit the award of relief in cases of this type unless such relief is sought by petition in the original cause (i. e., the foreclosure suit). This court is bound to observe the law as enunciated by the court of last resort and since the Broadman Oase obviously is controlling and dispositive of the present issue, the bill will be stricken. There is no alternative.