Kersting v. Hardgrove.

Decision Date12 July 1946
PartiesKERSTING et al. v. HARDGROVE.
CourtNew Jersey Circuit Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Action by Arthur R. Kersting and another against Lillian Hardgrove for redress because of rent overcharges contrary to the Federal Emergency Price Control Act. On defendant's motion to strike out the various counts of the complaint.

Motion granted as to the first six counts, and denied as to the remaining 12 counts.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The Federal Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 as amended, creates the right and limits the recovery (section 205(e)) for overcharge, to actions brought within one year after the payment of the alleged overcharge.

2. A count in a complaint which shows that the overcharge was exacted more than one year prior to the commencement of the suit does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

3. The United States government is not a foreign sovereignty as respects the several states, but is a concurrent and within its jurisdiction, a superior sovereignty.

4. The courts of competent jurisdiction of the state of New Jersey will entertain actions to enforce the penalties imposed under the Federal Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 as amended.

Lyness & Bedell, of Plainfield (Charles Blume, of Newark, of counsel), for plaintiffs.

Myron L. Levy, of Somerville, for defendant.

LEYDEN, Circuit Judge.

Defendant moves to strike the various counts of the complaint, assigning eight reasons therefor, only two of which seem to merit consideration.

The complaint contains eighteen counts, each seeking redress for an overcharge for rent, which overcharge is alleged to be contrary to the provisions of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, 52 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq., relating to the maximum rent regulation.

The summons was tested at Somerville on the 9th day of April, 1946. The overcharges set forth in the first six counts of the complaint occurred more than a year prior thereto. Section 205(e) of the act provides that if a person selling a commodity violates a regulation prescribing a maximum price, the person who buys such commodity may, within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation, bring an action against the seller on account of the overcharge. This remedy was unheard of at common law. The federal statute creates the right and limits the recovery and the liability of the wrongdoer to actions brought within one year after payment of the overcharge. The Harrisburg, 119 U.S. 199, at page 214, 7 S.Ct. 140, 30 L.Ed. 358; Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Burnette, 239 U.S. 199, 36 S.Ct. 75, 60 L.Ed. 226. It has been similarly held in New Jersey. Schwartz v. Dell'-Osso, 42 A.2d 306, 23 N.J.Misc. 151; Carmelly v. Hanson, 133 N.J.L. 180, 43 A.2d 685; Zuest v. Ingra, 134 N.J.L. 15, 45 A.2d 810, is not in conflict. The statute, in its effect, is comparable to our Death Act, R.S. 2:41-1 et seq., N.J.S.A. See Peters v. Public Service Corporation of New Jersey, 132 N.J.Eq. 500, 29 A.2d 189, affirmed 133 N.J.Eq. 283, 31 A.2d 809. The first six counts, therefore, are insufficient in law in that they do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The motion to strike is granted.

The remaining point that each count of the complaint involves a federal penalty statute cognizable exclusively in the federal courts and therefore, the Somerset County Circuit Court has no jurisdiction, poses some interesting questions: (1) whether the state of New Jersey will enforce a penalty imposed by a foreign sovereignty, and (2) whether the United States government is a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Imbrie v. Marsh
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 9 Enero 1950
    ...L.Ed. 257; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L.Ed. 23; Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113, 20 L.Ed. 122; see also Kersting v. Hardgrove, 48 A.2d 309, 24 N.J.Misc. 243 (Circuit Court 1946). My views above follow recognized authorities and are in accord with the arguments advanced and the decisions......
  • City of Oakland v. Desert Outdoor Advertising, Inc.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • 4 Agosto 2011
    ...decided that a judgment on such a statute must be given full faith and credit under the constitution”); Kersting v. Hardgrove, 24 N.J. Misc. 243, 48 A.2d 309, 310 (N.J.Cir.Ct.1946) (stating that “courts of one sovereignty will not enforce the penal laws of a foreign sovereignty” is “oft rep......
  • Moody v. Foster
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 6 Febrero 1947
    ... ... So far as we have been able ... to ascertain, there has been no decision from any court upon ... this point, though the case of Kersting v. Hardgrove, ... N.J. Cir.Ct., 48 A.2d 309, seems, as a physical ... precedent, to support our construction of the section under ... ...
  • Moody v. Foster
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 6 Febrero 1947
    ...So far as we have been able to ascertain, there has been no decision from any court upon this point, though the case of Kersting v. Hardgrove, NJ. Cir.Ct., 48 A.2d 309, seems, as a physical precedent, to support our construction of the section under consideration. Clearly, we think, it was ......
  • 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