Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Maday v. New Jersey Title Guarantee and Trust Co.

New Jersey Supreme Court


Decided: September 18, 1942.

DANIEL MADAY AND EVA MADAY, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
THE NEW JERSEY TITLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST CO., JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY, IN LIQUIDATION, IN CHARGE OF LOUIS A. REILLY, COMMISSIONER OF BANKING AND INSURANCE OF NEW JERSEY, AND ANDREW GREY, SPECIAL ASSISTANT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF BANKING AND INSURANCE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

On appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 127 N.J.L. 426.

For the plaintiffs-respondents, Irving Reiken and Louis P. Brenner.

For the defendant-appellant, William Wann and Wilbur A. Stevens.

Per Curiam

[129 NJL Page 53]

PER CURIAM.

We are in accord with the view expressed in the opinion filed in the Supreme Court with this exception: The term of the letting is, we think, important. The only testimony on the subject came from the defendant and was that the tenancy was from month to month. The testimony of Mrs. Maday, tenant and plaintiff, was that in the month of January she informed a person who, it is admitted, was the defendant's agent that the ceiling was defective and likely to fall and that she would move unless it was fixed; thereupon the agent asked her not to move and assured her that he would make the necessary repair. Thus we have a consideration for the promise -- the right on the part of the tenant to terminate the tenancy before the happening of the accident in March, and the remaining in occupancy on the strength of the promise to repair. There is no proof of the inclusion in the original contract of a duty upon the landlord to repair or of an undertaking that the premises were or should be fit for occupancy; and since the facts do not bring the case

[129 NJL Page 54]

within any of the exceptions, the alleged actionable negligence of the defendant to repair must therefore ground in a subsequent contract supported by consideration. Bolitho v. Mintz, 106 N.J.L. 449; Granato v. Howard Savings Institution, 120 Id. 94; Rosenberg v. Krinick, 116 Id. 597; Watkins v. Feinberg, 128 Id. 79; Folley v. United Building and Loan Association, 117 Id. 54. Hence the importance of the monthly feature of the letting.

The appellant's brief contains, in addition to the names of the attorney of record and of counsel, the name of one who is neither the attorney of record nor a counselor-at-law. The last mentioned name is appended with the designation -- "on the brief." It has no place there and is not noted supra.

For affirmance -- THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, CASE, BODINE, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, DEAR, WELLS, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, THOMPSON, JJ. 12.

For reversal -- None.

19420918


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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