Bierman v. Reinhorn
| Decision Date | 07 November 1904 |
| Citation | 71 N.J.L. 422,58 A. 1083 |
| Parties | BIERMAN v. REINHORN. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from District Court of Newark.
Action by Charles Blerman against David Reinhorn. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued June term, 1904, before HENDRICKSON and DIXON, JJ.
James R. Nugent, for plaintiff.
Michael J. Tansey, for defendant.
In consequence of the illness of Justice HENDRICKSON, he has been prevented from taking part in the decision, and the case is decided on the opinion of DIXON, J.:
This is an appeal from the Second District court of Newark against a judgment for the defendant in an action of replevin. The printed book contains what purport to be notes of testimony taken in the court below, but there is no case settled and signed by the judge, and the only facts appearing to be agreed upon by the parties are (1) that the plaintiff claimed title to the property in controversy by virtue of a mortgage dated November 28, 1903, made to him by Denning and wife, a copy of which is set forth; (2) that Denning obtained possession of the property under a written lease from the defendant, dated September 17, 1903, a copy of which is set forth; (3) that the defendant took possession of the property about January 20, 1904; and (4) that the plaintiff replevied on January 25, 1904. On referring to the mortgage, it appears to entitle Denning to possession until some default occurs, but no default is stated; and likewise the lease entitles Denning to possession until expiration of term, nonpayment of rent, or certain specified acts by him, but none of these things entitling the lessor, the defendant, to possession, is shown. The judgment for the defendant must, therefore, have rested (if no other facts appeared) on the failure of the plaintiff to prove a right of possession. It could legally rest on that basis, and no error in point of law was committed by so adjudging.
The brief submitted for the plaintiff places his claim to relief upon the proposition that the defendant's lease to Denning was a conditional bill of sale, and void, because not recorded. But the Judge has not certified nor have the parties agreed that such is the fact. Facts not shown by one of those means cannot be noticed in this court according to the statute (P. L. 1902, p. 565).
The judgment of the district court must be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bates v. Capital State Bank
...Wentworth, 23 Mont. 70 (78), 57 P. 648; Midland Contracting Co. v. Toledo Foundry etc. Co., 154 F. 797, 83 C. C. A. 489; Bierman v. Reinborn, 71 N.J.L. 422, 58 A. 1083; Wood v. Orser, 25 N.Y. 348; Scofield v. Whitelegge, 49 N.Y. 259; Rucker v. Donovan, 13 Kan. 251, 19 Am. Rep. 84; Lane v. C......
-
Grimbilas v. Unfair, Inc.
...strength of his own title rather than upon the weakness of the defendant's title. Chambers v. Hunt, 18 N.J.L. 339, 345; Bierman v. Reinhorn, 71 N.J.L. 422, 58 A. 1083. The burden is upon the plaintiff to establish by competent proof, ownership absolute or qualified, and right to exclusive p......
-
Labash v. Edelman., 34.
...or non-existent is of no avail to the plaintiff who to succeed must show a right to possession in himself. Compare Bierman v. Reinhorn, 71 N.J.L. 422, 58 A. 1083; Pintenics v. Menwig, 113 N.J.L. 4, 172 A. 377; Grimbalis v. Linfair, Inc., 126 N.J.L. 82, 18 A.2d 412. This deficiency of proof ......
- Neutze v. Atl. City R. Co.