Case Name: Gabriele Giordano, complainant-appellant, v. Asbury Park and Ocean Grove Bank et al., defendants-respondents
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1927-12-23
Citations: 102 N.J. Eq. 64
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gabriele Giordano, complainant-appellant, v. Asbury Park and Ocean Grove Bank et al., defendants-respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 102
Pages: 64–65

Head Matter:
Gabriele Giordano, complainant-appellant, v. Asbury Park and Ocean Grove Bank et al., defendants-respondents.
[Argued October term, 1927.
Decided December 23d, 1927.]
On appeal from the court of chancery advised by Chancellor Walker, who delivered the following opinion:
“The complainant files a bill in which he asserts that on January 15th, 1927, the defendant docketed a judgment against him in the court of common pleas of Monmouth county, the bill not stating when it was recovered, so far as I can find, though several judgments are pleaded, and issued an execution thereon, and sale under it is advertised for March 39th, 1937. The bill is one which the plaintiff calls ‘a bill for review to set aside a judgment.’ It is signed by the complainant as solicitor pro se. It is not verified. It' has not even the common form of affidavit annexed. It prays to restrain the sheriff from selling, and to enjoin the defendant fim the ground of fraud and duress,’ and that the judgment may be set aside, as without consideration.
“It has been repeatedly held that to obtain an injunction, the statements of a bill which are relied upon as ground for granting the writ must be specifically verified. Dick. Ch. Prec. (Rev. Ed.) 16, note (b), citing Youngblood v. Schomp, 15 N. J. Eq. (2 McCart.) 42; Holdrege v. Gwynne, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C. E. Green) 27. On a verified bill judgment may be entered by default. See Perrine v. Hafeman, 100 N. J. Eq. 33. Thus showing that a bill for preliminary affirmative relief must be fully verified.
“Upon this ground alone, the prayer of the bill must be denied. Denial accordingly.”
Mr. Gabrielle Giordano, for the appellant.
Messrs. Durand, Ivins & Carton, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
After full consideration of the matters urged by the appellant for reversal of the orders of the court of chancery appealed from, we affirm the said orders for the reasons stated in the opinion of the chancellor.
For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trehchard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Katzehbach, Lloyd, White, Yah Buskirk, McGlehfon, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, JJ. 14.
For reversal — None.