Heckel v. Griese, No. 39.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation171 A. 148
PartiesHECKEL v. GRIESE.
Decision Date15 February 1934
Docket NumberNo. 39.
171 A. 148

HECKEL
v.
GRIESE.

No. 39.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 15, 1934.


Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Essex County.

Action by Edmund Heckel against Fred J. Griese. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued October term, 1933, before BROCAN, C. J., and TRENCHARD and HEHER. JJ.

Edgar Leiss, of Newark, for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

This is the defendant's appeal from a judgment entered in the Essex county common pleas court for the plaintiff, after the answer of the defendant had been stricken out by the judge on notice and affidavit.

The factual situation, as exhibited by the pleadings and affidavits, is not in substantial dispute.

On February 20, 1928, plaintiff in writing leased to the defendant certain premises for a period of one year and eight months be ginning March 1, 1928, and ending October 31, 1929, at an annual rental of $1800, payable in monthly installments of $150 in advance. The defendant entered the premises on March 1, 1928, and vacated them some time in the month of June, 1931, and has paid the rent up to and including October 31, 1931. Suit was started against the defendant for rent for the seven months ending May 31, 1932, on the theory that he was a hold-over tenant.

171 A. 149

A motion was made to strike out the answer filed by the defendant as sham and frivolous, and for final judgment, and, after a consideration of the affidavits filed by both sides and after argument, the common pleas judge granted the motions, and defendant appeals. We find no merit in the appeal.

The defendant, by reason of his holding over and paying the rent, became a tenant from year to year of the demised premises (Maier v. Champion, 97 N. J. Law, 493, 117 A. 603), and, in order to terminate such tenancy, the defendant would have had to serve upon the plaintiff a six months' notice of his intention to terminate the tenancy. Zabriskie v. Sullivan, SO N. J. Law, 673, 77 A. 1075, affirmed 82 N. J. Law, 545, 81 A. 1135. Thus far there is no dispute.

It is quite apparent, considering the pleadings and the affidavit of the plaintiff presented at the hearing, that the action of the common pleas judge was entirely justified unless the affidavits presented by the defendant raised a jury question entitling the defendant to defend. We think they did not.

The plaintiff's affidavit was to the effect, among other things, that the rent in question had not been paid, and this was not denied by either of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Sommer v. Kridel
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 29, 1977
    ...N.J.Super. 437, 125 A.2d 345 (App.Div.1956); Zucker v. Dehm, 128 N.J.L. 435, 26 A.2d 564 (Sup.Ct.1942); Heckel v. Griese, 12 N.J.Misc. 211, 171 A. 148 (Sup.Ct.1934); Muller v. Beck, 94 N.J.L. 311, 110 A. 831 (Sup.Ct.1920); Tanella v. Rettagliata, 120 N.J.Super. 400, 407, 294 A.2d 431 (Cty.C......
  • Gruman v. Investors Diversified Services, No. 36798
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • June 22, 1956
    ...176 N.E. 643; Jennings v. First Nat. Bank, 225 Mo.App. 232, 30 S.W.2d 1049; Merrill v. Willis, 51 Neb. 162, 70 N.W. 914; Heckel v. Griese, 171 A. 148, 12 N.J.Misc. 211; Zucker v. Dehm, 128 N.J.L. 435, 26 A.2d 564; Sancourt Realty Corp. v. Dowling, 220 App.Div. 660, 222 N.Y.S. 288; Underhill......
  • Heyman v. Linwood Park, Inc., Section Four, A--510
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • September 14, 1956
    ...and relet in case of vacancy or abandonment. Muller v. Beck, 94 N.J.L. 311, 110 A. 831 (Sup.Ct.1920); Heckel v. Griese, 12 N.J.Misc. 211, 171 A. 148 (Sup.Ct.1934); cf. Carey v. Hejke, 119 N.J.L. 594, 197 A. 652 (Sup.Ct.1938). Here, the landlord chose to reenter and to exercise his option to......
  • Riverview Realty Co. v. Perosio
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • January 8, 1976
    ...94 N.J.L. 311, 110 A. 831 (Sup.Ct.1920); Zucker v. Dehm, 128 N.J.L. 435, 26 A.2d 564 (Sup.Ct.1942); Heckel v. Griese, 12 N.J.Misc. 211, 171 A. 148 (Sup.Ct.1934); Heyman v. Linwood Park, 41 N.J.Super. 437, 125 A.2d 345 (App.Div.1956); Weiss v. I. Zapinski, Inc., 65 N.J.Super. 351, 167 A.2d 8......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Sommer v. Kridel
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 29, 1977
    ...N.J.Super. 437, 125 A.2d 345 (App.Div.1956); Zucker v. Dehm, 128 N.J.L. 435, 26 A.2d 564 (Sup.Ct.1942); Heckel v. Griese, 12 N.J.Misc. 211, 171 A. 148 (Sup.Ct.1934); Muller v. Beck, 94 N.J.L. 311, 110 A. 831 (Sup.Ct.1920); Tanella v. Rettagliata, 120 N.J.Super. 400, 407, 294 A.2d 431 (Cty.C......
  • Gruman v. Investors Diversified Services, No. 36798
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • June 22, 1956
    ...176 N.E. 643; Jennings v. First Nat. Bank, 225 Mo.App. 232, 30 S.W.2d 1049; Merrill v. Willis, 51 Neb. 162, 70 N.W. 914; Heckel v. Griese, 171 A. 148, 12 N.J.Misc. 211; Zucker v. Dehm, 128 N.J.L. 435, 26 A.2d 564; Sancourt Realty Corp. v. Dowling, 220 App.Div. 660, 222 N.Y.S. 288; Underhill......
  • Heyman v. Linwood Park, Inc., Section Four, A--510
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • September 14, 1956
    ...and relet in case of vacancy or abandonment. Muller v. Beck, 94 N.J.L. 311, 110 A. 831 (Sup.Ct.1920); Heckel v. Griese, 12 N.J.Misc. 211, 171 A. 148 (Sup.Ct.1934); cf. Carey v. Hejke, 119 N.J.L. 594, 197 A. 652 (Sup.Ct.1938). Here, the landlord chose to reenter and to exercise his option to......
  • Riverview Realty Co. v. Perosio
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • January 8, 1976
    ...94 N.J.L. 311, 110 A. 831 (Sup.Ct.1920); Zucker v. Dehm, 128 N.J.L. 435, 26 A.2d 564 (Sup.Ct.1942); Heckel v. Griese, 12 N.J.Misc. 211, 171 A. 148 (Sup.Ct.1934); Heyman v. Linwood Park, 41 N.J.Super. 437, 125 A.2d 345 (App.Div.1956); Weiss v. I. Zapinski, Inc., 65 N.J.Super. 351, 167 A.2d 8......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT