Cifelli v. Santamaria

• Decision Date: 21 February 1910
• Parties: CIFELLI v. SANTAMARIA.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

75 A. 434

79 N.J.L. 354

CIFELLI

v. SANTAMARIA.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 21, 1910.

Appeal from District Court of Newark.

Action by Maria Vacca Cifelli against Basilio Santamaria. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued November term, 1909, before SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, and PARKER, JJ.

Philip J. Schotland, for appellant.

Charles M. Mason, for appellee.

PARKER, J. This is an appeal from a district court The action was in trespass quare clausum fregit. The state of the case as settled by the judge shows that plaintiff, through her husband as her agent, demised certain premises in Newark to Felix Saldutti and Antonio Santamaria. The lease was in writing, and was for a term of three years and nine months from June 1, 1905, "with the privilege of renewal for a further three years." The rent was payable monthly in advance, and the lease contained an agreement by lessees that they would not relet or underlet the whole or any part of the premises nor assign the lease. During the term the lessees sublet the entire premises to the defendant, Basilio Santamaria, who went into possession and occupied the same for the remainder of the term, paying rent for the last 14 months to plaintiff's husband, though neither plaintiff nor her husband consented to the subletting. Plaintiff was requested to renew the lease in favor of Basilio Santamaria, but refused to do so. He held over after the expiration of the original term, tendered rent to plaintiff, which was refused, and no further rent accepted by her. On the day the term expired, he was served with a written notice to quit on April 1st, signed by plaintiff's husband. The district court held defendant, Basilio Santamaria, liable as a trespasser and gave judgment for $15 damages against him, entering a nonsuit as to Saldutti, who held no possession after the expiration of the term. The case therefore stands as a suit against appellant, Basilio Santamaria, alone.

Appellant's first point is that his holding over operated to extend the term for the renewal period, citing Mershon v. Williams, 62 N. J. Law, 779, 42 Atl. 778. But the distinction between that case and the one at bar is that in Mershon v. Williams it was conceded that the occupant was neither a subtenant nor an assignee of the term, and the case cited goes no farther than to hold that he might have exercised the option of renewal in favor of the tenant named in the original lease. In the present case the appellant desired a renewal in his own name, and...