Meeker v. Spalsbury

• Decision Date: 25 February 1901
• Parties: MEEKER v. SPALSBURY et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

48 A. 1026

66 N.J.L. 60

MEEKER

v. SPALSBURY et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 25, 1901.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Case certified from circuit court, Essex county.

Action by Edward Meeker against Emma Spalsbury and Charles C. Spalsbury. Questions certified.

On case certified, condensed as follows: On September 1, 1894, the plaintiff, by written lease under seal, demised to the defendants, for' a term of five years from October 1, 1894, at the yearly rent of $1,100, payable monthly in advance, the Essex Hotel, on Washington Place, East Orange, access to which by passageway from Prospect street was thereby guarantied. In the lease the tenants, among other things, agreed that the landlord might enter into and upon the demised premises at reasonable hours in the daytime to examine the same, or to make such repairs or alterations as should be necessary for the preservation thereof, and that, if the said premises should become vacant or be deserted during said term, he might re-enter the same, at his option, and relet them, and receive and apply the rent so received to the payment of the rent due by those presents. The defendants conducted a hotel business on the demised premises until July, 1898, when, having paid the rent for that month, they moved their business to a building erected by them in the vicinity. and delivered the key of the building on the demised premises to the agent (for collecting rent) of the plaintiff, stating that they had left the demised premises and would pay no more rent. Previous to that time the passageway from Prospect street had been partially obstructed by other tenants of the plaintiff, but without the plaintiff's authority, except as to certain ladders and scaffolds kept in place against the wall by posts from floor to ceiling, and which were thus customarily kept there at the time of the demise to the defendants. About a year after the demise the posts were removed, and the ladders and scaffolds and the other obstructions to some extent interfered with the free use of the passageway by the defendants and their patrons. The defendants demanded of the plaintiff the removal of the obstructions, particularly the ladders and scaffolds, and were told by the plaintiff that those were there of right. Such partial obstruction of the passageway continued down to the time of the trial. The plaintiff recovered from the defendants, by action at law, rent for the demised premises for the months of August and September, 1898. On September 20, 1898, in reply to a letter from one Yost inquiring as to renting said premises, the plaintiff wrote a letter as follows: "Dear Sir: Your letter was received. I cannot immediately give you an answer in regard to the building you speak of. I hope (I think I may say I expect) to have it in my possession within two weeks. The rent heretofore paid for it has been $1,100 per annum. I should be pleased to confer with you further about it." Early in October, 1898, the plaintiff entered the demised premises, and remodeled the building so that it could be rented either as a hotel or for flats. When the work was begun the premises were in good condition and repair. The work went on continuously for more than two months, during which the premises were untenantable. The alterations and changes were made in pursuance of plans drawn for the plaintiff. They cost about $1,800, and were made without consulting the defendants. They involved, among other things, differences in the size, number, and arrangement of rooms throughout the building. On December 23, 1898, the plaintiff, by written lease under seal, demised said premises to Adolphus Schluer for a term of three years and nine months from January 1, 1899, at the monthly rent, payable in advance, of $50 to October 1, 1899, and at the yearly rent of $1,250 thereafter during the term, and agreed to make certain specified improvements and additions. Schluer made like agreement to that of the defendants in their lease, as to entry and reletting, with the further provision that any alterations might be made if...