Earl v. Krug Baking Co. Of N.J..
| Decision Date | 14 November 1944 |
| Citation | 39 A.2d 784 |
| Parties | EARL et al. v. KRUG BAKING CO. OF NEW JERSEY. |
| Court | New Jersey Circuit Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Summary proceeding by Jack Earl and another, landlords, against Krug Baking Company of New Jersey, a corporation tenant to recover possession of certain premises from tenant. On tenant's application for an order requiring landlords to furnish a bill of particulars.
Order allowed only with respect to the first demand.
Jerome J. Dunn, of Ridgewood, for landlord-plaintiff.
Brady & Daly, of Newark, for tenant-defendant.
This proceeding, instituted in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the County of Bergen, to recover possession of the premises known as No. 28-32 North Maple Avenue, in the Village of Ridgewood, Bergen County, from the tenant-defendant, was removed by order of Mr. Justice Bodine to the Bergen County Circuit Court pursuant to the statutes, R.S. 2:58-27, N.J.S.A. 2:58-27, and its companion R.S. 2:32-274, N.J.S.A. 2:32-274.
The attorneys for the parties being doubtful on the point, this application, on notice, was made by the tenant for an order requiring the landlord to furnish a bill of particulars as to the following:
1. State what repairs to the roof of the building on the demised premises you allege were necessary and which you allege the tenant failed to make.
2. State what you allege were the conditions in and about the roof of the building on the demised premises which made those repairs necessary.
3. State when you allege that the conditions in and about the roof of the building on the demised premises which you allege made those repairs necessary first obtained or first came to your knowledge.
4. State whether it is alleged that the conditions in and about the roof of the building on the demised premises which you allege made those repairs necessary were called to the attention of the tenant and, if so, to whom representing the tenant notice thereof was given.
5. State what you allege to have been the cause of the conditions in and about the roof of the building on the demised premises which you allege made those repairs necessary, and if you allege the cause to have been one or more identifiable occurrences, state what you allege each was and when you allege each occurred.
Summary proceedings in the district court for the dispossession of tenants may be described as a statutory substitute for the common law action in ejectment, and although the proceedings are commenced by the filing of the jurisdictional affidavit, that affidavit is none the less a complaint in the ordinary acceptation of the term. One...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marini v. Ireland
...was transferred to the District Court, but the action continued to be commenced by the filing of an affidavit. In Earl v. Krug Baking Co., 22 N.J.Misc. 424 (Cir.Ct.1944), the court said in that connection at p. 425, 39 A.2d 784, at p. 'Summary proceedings in the district court for the dispo......
-
Hoy v. Meyers.
...a bill of particulars although such a bill is not mentioned in the landlord and tenant proceedings. Earl v. Krug Baking Co., N.J.Cir.Ct., Bergen County, 1944, 39 A.2d 784, 22 N.J.Misc. 424. But a bill of particulars is a common law right and is not provided for even in the Small Cause Court......