
    ALEKSC FRYTEZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. KATHERINE GRUCHACZ, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
    Submitted October 25, 1940
    Decided January 28, 1941.
    For the appellant, Rospond & Rospond (Felix Rospond, of counsel).
    For the respondent, Thomas Brunetto.
    
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

The appeal is from a judgment of nonsuit entered pursuant to N. J. S. A. 2:27-215. We find no abuse of discretion. Stein v. Goodenough, 73 N. J. L. 812.

An action was commenced in November, 1926, to recover on a note of April 23d, 1923, and for money advanced to the defendant during the years 1922 to 1925. Nothing seems to have been done in this cause till a default judgment was entered in 1939. This judgment was vacated and the service of a summons set aside. An earlier suit for the same cause of action was then discovered, and it is claimed that a notice of trial was then served on the defendant, her attorney being dead. The plaintiff’s attorney had not notified the defendant to employ an attorney. N. J. S. A. 2:20-6. It is not necessary, however, to decide whether that step should have been taken since the trial judge has entire control of his calendars, and we do not think a cause so long delayed in prosecution should have a place in the court.

The judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellob, Paekeb, Case, Bodine, Donges, Poetee, Deae, Wells, Raffeety, JJ'. 9.

For reversal — Ti-ie Chief Justice, Hbilee, Pebsiue, WolfsKbil, Hague, JJ. 5.  