Dolton v. State
| Decision Date | 10 June 1901 |
| Parties | DOLTON v. STATE (SICKEL, Prosecutor). |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Certiorari to Trenton district court.
Action by Edward B. Dolton against Marie M. Sickel. Judgment for plaintiff, and the state, at the prosecution of defendant, brings certiorari. Affirmed.
Argued February term, 1901, before VAN SYCKEL, GARRISON, and GARRETSON, JJ.
P. S. Katzenbach, Jr., for plaintiff.
Holt & Van Dike, for prosecutor.
This was an action for rent, brought in the district court. The question of tenancy that is in this case is, in its legal aspects, identical with that passed upon in Yetter v. Confectionery Co., 49 Atl. 678, argued at the same term, and decided in an opinion now filed.
The present case presents, however, a further question. The district court found as facts "that the plaintiff refused to accept a surrender of file premises; that the prosecutor removed her belongings from the premises, left the keys with the plaintiff, and that toe subsequently rented portions of the premises to other parties"; also that "there was no surrender of the premises effected by the leaving of the keys with the plaintiff, and that the renting of a part of the premises by the landlord did not constitute eviction; and that the tenant should be credited upon the year's rent for the amount received by the landlord for the parts rented, and a judgment should be given in the landlord's favor for the remainder."
We have looked at the testimony returned in response to a rule made in the cause, and find that it affords a rational support for the above findings, provided the reletting of a part of the demised premises be not ipso facto an eviction that during its continuance would suspend the entire rent.
The essense of an eviction is that it disturbs the possession of the tenant. Meeker v. Spalsbury (N. J. Sup.) 48 Atl. 1026.
The penalty for such a disturbance, if it be ascribable to the landlord, is that while it lasts he can collect no rent from the original tenant The reletting of a part of the demised premises by the landlord to a third person is, in a legal sense, an eviction. Morris v. Kettle, 57 N. J. Law, 218, 30 Atl. 879. Where, however, the tenant has vacated and abandoned the premises, an eviction by such a reletting is constructive merely, and should, within the reason of the rule, impose upon the landlord no penalty other than that of crediting the tenant with the sum so earned by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burnstine v. Margulies
...to a demand for rent that falls due after the eviction. Morris v. Kettle, 57 N.J.L. 218, 30 A. 879 (Sup.Ct.1894); Dolton v. Sickel, 66 N.J.L. 492, 49 A. 679 (Sup.Ct.1901), affirmed 68 N.J.L. 731, 54 A. 1124 (E. & A.1903). With the law so settled, there was clearly no error in the denial of ......
-
Heyman v. Linwood Park, Inc., Section Four
...as to constitute in a legal sense an eviction which would entitle the plaintiff to the proceeds of the reletting, Dolton v. Sickel, 66 N.J.L. 492, 49 A. 679 (Sup.Ct.1901), affirmed 68 N.J.L. 731, 54 A. 1124 (E. & A.1903); Albrecht v. Thieme, 97 N.J.L. 103, 116 A. 276 (Sup.Ct.1921), affirmed......
-
In re United Cigar Stores Co. of America, 312.
...to show a surrender and acceptance of the leased premises. Liskovsky v. Blau, 114 N.J. Law, 324, 176 A. 562. See, also, Dolton v. Sickel, 66 N.J.Law, 492, 49 A. 679; Banks v. Berliner, 95 N.J.Law, 267, 113 A. 321. But here the evidence went beyond that and showed that the landlord had made ......
-
Cornerstone Bldg. & Loan Ass'n of Newark v. Tallman, 440.
...of part of the demised premises to a stranger constitutes an eviction. Morris v. Kettle, 57 N.J.Law, 218, 30 A. 879; Dolton v. Sickel, 66 N.J. Law, 492, 49 A. 679. The penalty for such act by the landlord is that he cannot collect rent from his In the case of Gribbie v. Toms, 70 N.J.Law, 52......