Beneficial Finance Co. of Newark v. Daloisio

| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jan 17, 1966

90 N.J. Super. 80" court="N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div." date_filed="1966-01-17" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/beneficial-finance-co-of-newark-v-daloisio-1945096?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1945096">90 N.J. Super. 80 (1966) 216 A.2d 253" court="N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div." date_filed="1966-01-17" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/beneficial-finance-co-of-newark-v-daloisio-1945096?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1945096">216 A.2d 253

BENEFICIAL FINANCE CO. OF NEWARK, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
ALFONSO DALOISIO AND ANTHONY DALOISIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND TRADING AS RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued January 11, 1966. Decided January 17, 1966.

Before Judges GOLDMANN, FOLEY and COLLESTER.

Mr. Edward F. Merrey, Jr. argued the cause for appellants (Messrs. Merrey & Merrey, attorneys; Mr. John P. Goceljak, on the brief).

Mr. Joshua M. Levin argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Levin & Chenkin, attorneys).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under appeal is affirmed. We find no merit in defendants' contention that enforcement of a wage assignment under N.J.S.A. 17:10-18, part of the Small Loan Law, violates the provisions of N.J. Const., Art. I, par. 1, and Art. IV, § VII, pars. 7, 8 and 9, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Nor is their argument that the county district court was without jurisdiction sound. This is not a case of a wage assignment relating to a future contract of employment, in which case the claim for relief would be purely equitable. 6 Am. Jur.2d, Assignments, sec. 46, p. 229 et seq. (1963). The assignor was an employee of defendants at the time he executed the wage assignment and when it was served; and the fact that there subsequently was a brief break in his continuity of service did not defeat the effectiveness of the assignment.