Carey v. Hejke, No. 448.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation119 N.J.L. 594,197 A. 652
Decision Date07 March 1938
Docket NumberNo. 448.
PartiesCAREY et al. v. HEJKE.
197 A. 652
119 N.J.L. 594

CAREY et al.
v.
HEJKE.

No. 448.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

March 7, 1938.


Appeal from Second District Court of Jersey City.

Action for rent by Robert Carey and others, executors of the estate of Marie A. E. Seib, deceased, against Eugene W. Hejke. From a judgment for the plaintiffs, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued October term 1937, before CASE and DONGES, JJ.

Morris Edelstein and Samuel Cooper, both of Jersey City, for appellant. Carey & Lane, of Jersey City, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Second district court of Jersey City in favor of the plaintiffs and against the

197 A. 653

defendant for two months' rent under a lease. Plaintiffs are executors of the estate of Marie A. E. Seib who leased an apartment to the defendant for a period from November 1, 1933, to October 1, 1934, by a written lease, at a rental of $68 per month. The lease contained a clause that it should be considered as renewed from year to year after October 1, 1934, unless either party gave a written notice of one month of intention to terminate on any yearly expiration date. No such written notice was ever given, and defendant occupied the apartment and continued to pay the monthly rate of rental until he gave notice on May 29, 1936, of his intention to vacate on July 1, 1936. On or about May 9, 1936, defendant had a conversation with an employee of the real estate firm having the building in charge to the effect that he desired to vacate. He was told that his lease was effective until October 1st. On June 30, 1936, defendant vacated and turned the keys over to the superintendent. The landlord entered into the apartment and redecorated it for the purpose of renting it, and in late August or early September, 1936, permitted another tenant to move in. This tenant was by agreement to commence the payment of rent on October 1st. This suit was then started to recover rent for the months of July and August, 1936, and resulted in judgment against defendant for the amount sought.

The first point argued by defendant-appellant is that a judgment of nonsuit entered in his favor against plaintiffs in a prior suit in another district court to recover the same sum sought to be recovered here is res adjudicata or stare decisis. We see no merit in this point. The rule is that a judgment of nonsuit in a former action between the same parties is no bar to another suit for the same cause of action. Beckett...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Sommer v. Kridel
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 29, 1977
    ...(characterized as dictum and rejected in Muller v. Beck, supra ), aff'd 82 N.J.L. 545, 81 A. 1135 (E. & A. 1911); Carey v. Hejke, 119 N.J.L. 594, 596, 197 A. 652 (Sup.Ct.1938). This rule has been followed in a majority of states, Annot. 21 A.L.R.3d 534, § 2(a) at 541 (1968), and has been te......
  • Kanter v. Safran
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • September 15, 1953
    ...96 S.W.2d 551; Stewart v. Kuskin & Rotberg, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d 1074; Lips v. Opp, 150 Kan. 745, 96 P.2d 865; Carey v. Hejke, 119 N.J.L. 594, 197 A. 652; Friedman v. Colonial Oil Co., 236 Iowa 140, 18 N.W.2d 196. See also Williams v. Aeroland Oil Company, 155 Fla. 114, 20 So.2d 3......
  • Lefrak v. Lambert
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • December 3, 1976
    ...797; Kanter v. Safran (Fla.), 68 So.2d 553; Jordan v. Nickell (Ky.), 253 S.W.2d 237; Crow v. Kaupp (Mo.), 50 S.W.2d 995; Carey v. Hejke, 119 N.J.L. 594, 197 A. 652; John Church Co. v. Martinez (Tex.Civ.App.), 204 S.W. 486; Brown v. Hayes, 92 Wash. 300, 159 P. If the lease is now viewed as a......
  • Heyman v. Linwood Park, Inc., Section Four, A--510
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • September 14, 1956
    ...v. Beck, 94 N.J.L. 311, 110 A. 831 (Sup.Ct.1920); Heckel v. Griese, 12 N.J.Misc. 211, 171 A. 148 (Sup.Ct.1934); cf. Carey v. Hejke, 119 N.J.L. 594, 197 A. 652 (Sup.Ct.1938). Here, the landlord chose to reenter and to exercise his option to relet pursuant to the lease The appellant urges tha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Sommer v. Kridel
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 29, 1977
    ...(characterized as dictum and rejected in Muller v. Beck, supra ), aff'd 82 N.J.L. 545, 81 A. 1135 (E. & A. 1911); Carey v. Hejke, 119 N.J.L. 594, 596, 197 A. 652 (Sup.Ct.1938). This rule has been followed in a majority of states, Annot. 21 A.L.R.3d 534, § 2(a) at 541 (1968), and has been te......
  • Kanter v. Safran
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • September 15, 1953
    ...96 S.W.2d 551; Stewart v. Kuskin & Rotberg, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d 1074; Lips v. Opp, 150 Kan. 745, 96 P.2d 865; Carey v. Hejke, 119 N.J.L. 594, 197 A. 652; Friedman v. Colonial Oil Co., 236 Iowa 140, 18 N.W.2d 196. See also Williams v. Aeroland Oil Company, 155 Fla. 114, 20 So.2d 3......
  • Lefrak v. Lambert
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • December 3, 1976
    ...797; Kanter v. Safran (Fla.), 68 So.2d 553; Jordan v. Nickell (Ky.), 253 S.W.2d 237; Crow v. Kaupp (Mo.), 50 S.W.2d 995; Carey v. Hejke, 119 N.J.L. 594, 197 A. 652; John Church Co. v. Martinez (Tex.Civ.App.), 204 S.W. 486; Brown v. Hayes, 92 Wash. 300, 159 P. If the lease is now viewed as a......
  • Heyman v. Linwood Park, Inc., Section Four, A--510
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • September 14, 1956
    ...v. Beck, 94 N.J.L. 311, 110 A. 831 (Sup.Ct.1920); Heckel v. Griese, 12 N.J.Misc. 211, 171 A. 148 (Sup.Ct.1934); cf. Carey v. Hejke, 119 N.J.L. 594, 197 A. 652 (Sup.Ct.1938). Here, the landlord chose to reenter and to exercise his option to relet pursuant to the lease The appellant urges tha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT