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.

Stammelman v. Interstate Co.

Decided: February 2, 1934.

ROSE STAMMELMAN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
INTERSTATE COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 111 N.J.L. 122.

For the appellant, Donald Lewis (Charles H. Meyer, of the New York bar, on the brief).

For the respondent, Maurice C. Brigadier.

Campbell

The opinion of the court was delivered by

CAMPBELL, CHANCELLOR. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court affirming a judgment of the District Court.

The action was to recover rent for the months of April and May, 1932, under a certain lease, in writing, dated November 13th, 1928, for a term of ten years, commencing January 1st, 1929, and ending December 31st, 1938.

The state of demand based the right of recovery of plaintiff-respondent upon this lease.

The defense was that this lease was void under the statute of frauds, being for a term exceeding three years, and executed by the vice-president of the appellant corporation, acting

in the capacity of its agent, and without authorization in writing. This contention was countered and attempted to be overcome by proofs said to show ratification.

This appears to have been the principal issue raised, considered and tried in the District Court and resulted in a finding by the trial judge, sitting without a jury, in favor of the plaintiff in that court, and evidence by a judgment in favor of that party.

In reviewing this judgment upon appeal it appears that the Supreme Court had before it two grounds urged for reversal, namely: (a) that there was no competent proof before the trial court warranting a finding by that court that there was a ratification of the lease in question by the corporate appellant.

(b) That the plaintiff below could not maintain the action because the original lessor had no title to the property which he could make the subject of a lease, and if he had there was no ...


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.