Summary
holding that trial or appellate court can recognize unclean hands doctrine, sua sponte, in interest of justice and public where justified by the circumstances
Summary of this case from Pharmaceutical Sales v. J.W.S. Delavau Co., Inc.Opinion
Argued February 20, 1956 —
Decided February 28, 1956.
Appeal from Superior Court, Chancery Division.
Before Judges CLAPP, JAYNE and FRANCIS.
Mr. Martin L. Haines argued the cause for appellants ( Messrs. Dimon, Haines Bunting, attorneys). Mr. Robert E. Dietz argued the cause for respondent ( Messrs. Powell Davis, attorneys; Mr. James M. Davis, Jr., of counsel).
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Goldmann reported in 35 N.J. Super. 270 ( Ch. Div. 1955).
We feel constrained to add that the defendants sought for the first time in the litigation to invoke on this appeal the equitable doctrine of unclean hands adversely to the plaintiff's cause of action. While we believe that the presentation of that contention by the defendants is a "matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense" to be averred within the import of R.R. 4:8-3, we do not doubt the right of the trial or appellate court to recognize, sua sponte, the principle in the interests of justice and public policy where justified by the circumstances. Medical Fabrics Co. v. D.C. McLintock Co., 12 N.J. Super. 177 ( App. Div. 1951). We are not persuaded that the facts as resolved in the present action warranted the application of the principle.