Dorfman v. Barnett
| Citation | 48 A.2d 217 |
| Parties | DORFMAN v. BARNETT et al. |
| Decision Date | 11 July 1946 |
| Court | New Jersey Circuit Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action in ejectment by Ida Dorfman against Jack Richard Barnett and another for possession of designated premises, wherein defendants filed an answer of general denial, and plaintiff moved to strike out the answer on ground that it was sham, and for summary judgment.
Motion to strike answer granted and writ of possession issued.
Clarence Blitz, of Atlantic City, for plaintiff.
Altman & Backer, by Chaim H. Sandler, all of Atlantic City, for defendants.
Plaintiff filed a complaint in ejectment against the defendants for possession of the following described premises, to wit: All that certain unfurnished apartment, styled 1-B on the first floor of the apartment building known and designated as Vermont Apartments, situate at the northeast corner of Vermont Avenue and the Boardwalk in the City of Atlantic City, County of Atlantic and State of New Jersey, and alleged her right to possession accrued on April 15, 1946, and demand was made for mesne damages.
Defendants filed an answer of general denial, and thereby admitted possession of the premises. R.S. 2:51-14, N.J.S.A.; Quinlan v. Borough of Fair Haven, Err. & App., 1925, 102 N.J.L. 443, 131 A. 870.
Motion has been made by the plaintiff to strike out the answer on the ground that it is sham and for summary judgment.
The following facts stand uncontroverted:
The plaintiff acquired title to the premises in question, inter alia, by virtue of the following deed: Made by Bankers Bond and Mortgage Guaranty Company of America to Ida Dorfman, wife of Aaron Dorfman, dated April 2nd, 1946, and recorded in the office of the Clerk of Atlantic County in Book 1271 of Deeds page 262. At the time of acquiring title by the plaintiff, there was assigned the grantor's right, title and interest in and to a certain written lease for the premises in question, dated April 11, 1944, made by the plaintiff's grantor's agent to Emanuel Muchnick. The term of the lease began June 15, 1944, and ended on June 14, 1945. It was stipulated between the parties that the original lease was to be considered as an exhibit as if attached to plaintiff's supporting affidavit. The lessee held over and became a tenant from month to month. The lessee died on April 7, 1946.
The fact of the lessee's death has created the issue in this controversy and requires the construction of the lease. Although a tenancy from month to month is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baum v. Tazwell
...tenant but his interest therein passes to his executor or administrator.’ This rule was also stated in Dorfman v. Barnett, Circuit Court, July 11, 1946, 48 A.2d 217, 24 N.J.Misc. 212, (not reported in State Reports) but was held inapplicable because the written contract evinced the intentio......
-
Center Ave. Realty, Inc. v. Smith
... ... Pierce, 175 N.J.Super. 149, 152, 417 A.2d 1085 (Law Div.1980); Baum, supra, 26 ... N.J.Misc. at 294, 61 A.2d 12; Dorfman [624 A.2d 999] v. Barnett, 24 N.J.Misc. 212, 213, 48 A.2d 217 (Cir.Ct.1946) ... At the time of the tenant's death here, the tenancy ... ...
-
Egner v. Egner
... ... Gross v. Peskin, 101 N.J.Super. 468, 244 A.2d 692 (App.Div.1968); Baum v. Tazwell, 26 N.J.Misc. 292, 61 A.2d 12 (1948); Dorfman v. Barnett, 24 N.J.Misc. 212, 48 A.2d 217 (1946). Thus the usual intent of parties to a mortgage, like that of parties to a lease, is that passage ... ...
-
Housing Authority of City of Newark v. Reid
...to make rental payments. Gross v. Peskin, 101 N.J.Super. 468 (App.Div.1968); Baum v. Tazwell, 26 N.J.Misc. 292 (1948); Dorfman v. Barnett, 24 N.J.Misc. 212 (1946). Thus the usual intent of parties to a mortgage, like that of parties to a lease, is that passage of the property by operation o......