Evans v. Martin.
| Decision Date | 06 January 1948 |
| Citation | 56 A.2d 416 |
| Parties | EVANS v. MARTIN. |
| Court | New Jersey Circuit Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action in ejectment by John T. Evans against Edward J. Martin. On motion to strike answer.
Answer stricken.
Syllabus by the Court
.
1. In an estate by entireties, the seizin of the husband and wife during their joint lives is essentially a tenancy in common, terminated on the death of either, with remainder in fee to the survivor.
2. A tenant in common has the right to the full possession of all of the property held in cotenancy except only as it is limited by the equal right of his cotenant.
3. A tenant in common has no right of exclusive possession of any portion of the common property.
4. A tenant in common has the right to full possession of the common property as against all the world save his cotenants.
5. A boarder of one cotenant is a stranger to the title and right to possession and as such cannot defend as against the other cotenant's right to full possession of the common property.
Major & Carlsen, of Hackensack, for plaintiff.
Arthur A. Donigian, of Hackensack, for defendant.
The plaintiff and his wife are the owners of their home as cotenants by the entirety. The house has five rooms and a bath. The defendant Martin is the son of Mrs. Evans by a prior marriage and has lived with his mother all of the twenty-five years of his life. Presently he occupies the front bedroom on the second floor with the asserted privilege of using the remainder of the house and grounds except the rear bedroom. Marital difficulties have arisen between Mr. and Mrs. Evans and the plaintiff has ordered defendant to vacate the room and establish himself elsewhere. He refuses to leave, hence this ejectment suit.
The complaint is in the usual form and the amended answer denies the truth of the matters contained therein and sets up a separate defense (see S.C.R. 185) that defendant is a tenant of Mrs. Evans and plaintiff. The motion is to strike the denial as sham and the defense as insufficient in law.
The answering affidavits of defendant and Mrs. Evans demonstrate beyond question that the relation of landlord and tenant does not exist and at best the defendant is merely a boarder paying $15 per week to Mrs. Evans for his room and meals. Mr. Evans' consent to this arrangement, if ever given, has been long since revoked. The situation presented is not unlike that in Chapman v. Mitchell, 44 A.2d 392, 23 N.J.Misc. 358, except that there the strangers were a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dorf v. Tuscarora Pipe Line Co.
...to a conveyance, voluntary or involuntary, each tenant is entitled to possession, along with his or her spouse, Evans v. Martin, 26 N.J.Misc. 65, 56 A.2d 416 (Cir.Ct.1948); can protect his interest against a wrongdoing outsider, and is protected against waste by his spouse. For a criticism ......