Case Name: ASHOR SALAMAN, APPELLANT, v. EQUITABLE TRUST COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, AND SADIE CADES, INDIVIDUALLY, AND LEWIS LIBERMAN AND EDWIN CADES, EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF AARON S. CADES, DECEASED, DEFENDANTS
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1929-05-20
Citations: 105 N.J.L. 649
Docket Number: 
Parties: ASHOR SALAMAN, APPELLANT, v. EQUITABLE TRUST COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, AND SADIE CADES, INDIVIDUALLY, AND LEWIS LIBERMAN AND EDWIN CADES, EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF AARON S. CADES, DECEASED, DEFENDANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 105
Pages: 649–650

Head Matter:
ASHOR SALAMAN, APPELLANT, v. EQUITABLE TRUST COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, AND SADIE CADES, INDIVIDUALLY, AND LEWIS LIBERMAN AND EDWIN CADES, EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF AARON S. CADES, DECEASED, DEFENDANTS.
Argued February 18, 1929
Decided May 20, 1929.
For the appellant, August B. Bepetto.
For the respondent, Equitable Trust Company, Morris Bloom.

Opinion:
Pee Ctjeiam.
This was an appeal by Salaman from an order made in the Supreme Court December 11th, 1938, by Mr. Justice 'Katzénbach. It orders "that the Equitable Trust Company be and it is hereby admitted as a party plaintiff with the plaintiff, Ashor Salaman, in the above-entitled cause." In the opinion in the court below Mr. Justice Katzénbach among other things said:
' "The Equitable Trust Company contends that any judgment which may be obtained in the present action should be paid to it under the terms of this agreement of November 36th, 1936. The suit is in actuality one for a breach of this agreement of November 36th, 1936.
"The situation presented is, that if the judgment is paid the Cades'are entitled to the mortgage. This mortgage would have to be assigned by the Equitable Trust Company to the Cades estate. To determine fully the question finally, if it were the subject of consideration by this court, one would have to know the circumstances and the date under which the plaintiff, Salaman, took this mortgage. There has been no testimony with reference to any assignment of the claim by Isen to Salaman which gives the court any of these facts."
Thus it plainly appears that the order appealed from is not a final judgment in the cause, and from a final judgment only may an appeal be taken. Van Hoogenstyn v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Co., 90 N. J. L. 189; Denholtz v. Donner, Denholtz Co., 96 Id. 545; Salmons v. Rugyeri, 103 Id. 596.
Let the appeal in this case be dismissed.