The George Jonas Glass Company v. Ross

• Decision Date: 20 December 1902
• Citation: The George Jonas Glass Company v. Ross, 53 A. 675, 69 N.J.L. 157 (N.J. 1902)
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: THE GEORGE JONAS GLASS COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN CERTIORARI, v. H. WILEY ROSS, PLAINTIFF IN CERTIORARI

53 A. 675

69 N.J.L. 157

GEORGE JONAS GLASS CO.

v. ROSS.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Dec. 20, 1902.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari to Atlantic City district court Action by the George Jonas Glass Company against H. Wiley Ross. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings certiorari. Reversed.

The writ in this case removes a proceeding in the district court of Atlantic City, brought by a landlord to dispossess his tenant for nonpayment of rent The affidavit, verified on August 18, 1902, on which jurisdiction was taken, was as follows:

"State of New Jersey, Atlantic County—ss.: David C. Applegate, of full age, being duly sworn, on his oath says that he is the secretary and agent of the George Jonas Glass Company, a corporation of the state of New Jersey; that one H. Wiley Ross is now in the occupancy and possession of a certain house and premises of the said George Jonas Glass Company, situate in the township of Buena Vista, in the county of Atlantic, aforesaid,—said house and lot being more particularly described as the west half of the double house situate on lot No. 185 of the town plot of Minatola, on the south side of Summer road, in the village of Minatola, in the township aforesaid,—upon an agreement between the said George Jonas Glass Company and the said H. Wiley Ross, made on the 1st day of April, 1901, by which the said George Jonas Glass Company leased the said premises to the said H. Wiley Ross by the month, at the monthly rent of seven dollars, payable at the end of each month; that, in pursuance of the said agreement, the said H. Wiley Ross entered into possession of the said premises on the first day of April, 1901, by virtue of said agreement, and now is indebted to the said George Jonas Glass Company in the sum of seven dollars for rent of the said premises due on the first day of August, 1902. And deponent further says that the said H. Wiley Ross has not paid the said rent nor delivered up the said premises, but that he has made default in the payment of said rent, and holds over and continues in possession without the permission of the said George Jonas Glass Company."

Argued November term, 1902, before DIXON, COLLINS, and HENDRICKSON, JJ.

Louis H. Miller, for plaintiff.

John C. Reed, for defendant.

COLLINS, J. The sole reliance for support of the proceeding under review is upon section 107 of "An act concerning district courts" (Revision of 1898), as amended in 1901 (P. L. p. 68). That section purports to authorize the removal of tenants and others holding over in possession of demised premises in certain cases, one of which is "where such person shall hold over after any default in the payment of the rent pursuant to the agreement under which such premises are held." Under an appropriate title such legislation would apply to every case within its terms, but under a title embracing nothing beyond judicial jurisdiction and procedure it can extend only to cases where, independent of the enactment, a landlord has the right to recover possession of demised premises in default of payment of rent. Under article 4, § 7, par. 4, of the constitution, the object of a law must be expressed in its title, and the title of that cited does not indicate a purpose to declare or change the relative rights of landlords and tenants. We must look elsewhere, therefore, for any right of a landlord which this district court act can effectuate. At common law nonpayment of rent did not work a forfeiture of the demised term. The remedy of the landlord was to sue the tenant...