Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Manahan v. City of Englewood

Decided: November 27, 1931.

MABEL E. MANAHAN, PROSECUTRIX,
v.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, DEFENDANT



On writ of certiorari.

For the prosecutrix, David H. Stemer.

For the defendant, F. Hamilton Reeve and Morrison, Lloyd & Morrison.

Before Justices Trenchard, Daly and Donges.

Donges

The opinion of the court was delivered by

DONGES, J. This writ brings up the action of the District Court of the First Judicial District of Bergen county in entering an order for dispossession of the prosecutor. The contention here is that the District Court did not have jurisdiction of the case.

The facts are that the prosecutor rented the premises from the defendant, city of Englewood, at an annual rental of $1 per year. The lease contained a covenant that if the tenant should be adjudicated a bankrupt, or should violate any of the covenants in the lease, the landlord should have the right to terminate the lease and re-enter. On May 7th, 1930, the rent for the ensuing year became due and was not paid. On July 3d, 1930, the prosecutor was adjudicated a bankrupt. On February 17th, 1931, the city gave notice of its desire to terminate the lease because of the breach of the covenants thereof. Dispossession proceedings were then commenced in said court by service of a summons. On the return day of the summons the prosecutor deposited with the clerk of the said District Court a sum of money sufficient in amount to cover the rent due and costs, and then moved for the dismissal of the proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The motion was denied and judgment for dispossession was entered.

1. Subdivision 1 of section 107 of the District Court act (Comp. Stat., p. 1988) gives the court jurisdiction where a tenant holds over after expiration of the term. This subdivision does not apply here and the defendant so admits.

2. Subdivision 2 gives jurisdiction where the tenant holds over after default in rent. This section would give jurisdiction here were it not for the fact that the tenant made the deposit. Section 108 provides that when such deposit is made the proceedings shall stop. Therefore, the court did not have jurisdiction under this section.

3. Subdivision 3 is as follows:

"Where such person shall be so disorderly as to destroy the peace and quiet of the other tenants living in said house or the neighborhood, or shall willfully destroy, damage or injure

the premises, or shall constantly violate the landlord's rules and regulations governing said premises, provided the said tenant has accepted in writing said rules or such rules are made a part of the lease; or shall commit any breach or violation of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.