S. M. Braunstein, Inc. v. McCrory Stores Corp.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1922 |
| Citation | 116 A. 707 |
| Parties | S. M. BRAUNSTEIN, Inc. v. McCRORY STORES CORPORATION. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Action by S. M. Braunstein, Inc., against the McCrory Stores Corporation. From an order disallowing a preliminary injunction, plaintiff appeals. Order affirmed.
Clarence L. Cole, of Atlantic City, for appellant.
Bourgeois & Coulomb, of Atlantic City, for respondent.
On November 1, 1915, one Samuel Braunstein, who was the owner of a certain store and premises in Atlantic City, leased the same to the Braunstein-Blatt Co. for a period of 20 years. The lessee entered into possession at the beginning of the term, and conducted, on the premises, a general department store until 1921, when it assigned the lease to the defendant and surrendered possession to the latter. The defendant operates a "chain" of five and ten cent stores in this and other states, and after it entered into possession of the leased premises it began making alterations therein for the purpose of rendering them suitable for the carrying on of that business therein. Prior to the assignment of this lease to the defendant, the present complainant purchased the leased premises from Braunstein, and, having learned that the lease had been assigned and that the defendant purposed making material alterations to the store, notified the defendant that the assignment of the lease was invalid, and, further, that it would not permit the intended alterations to be made. Being informed by the defendant that it proposed to carry out its plans, in disregard of the notice given it, the complainant filed its bill seeking to enjoin such action. After hearing the case on bill and answering affidavits, the learned vice chancellor, to whom the matter had been referred, refused to allow a preliminary Injunction, and, from the order of disallowance, the present appeal has been taken.
The first contention before us is that the attempted assignment of the lease by the Braunstein-Blatt Co. to the defendant was invalid, for the reason that no such power had been conferred by the lease itself. But this contention, we think, is without merit, and for two reasons: In the first place, the rule is entirely settled in this state that, unless a lease contains a provision restraining the lessee from underletting the demised premises or assigning the lease, the lessee, is entitled to do the one or the other at his own pleasure, notwithstanding the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William Berland Realty Co. v. Hahne & Co.
...& Co., supra; Schlessinger v. Forest Products Co., supra; 4 Am.Jur., Assignments, sec. 7. Cf. Braunstein v. McGrory Stores Corp., 93 N.J.Eq. 419, 116 A. 707, 23 A.L.R. 133 (E. & A.1922). III. The pertinent parts of the Ninth paragraph of the lease 'The tenant covenants and agrees that shoul......
-
Berkeley Development Co. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
...the lessee from subletting, the lessee may do so at its option, even over the landlord's objection. Braunstein v. McGrory Stores Corp., 93 N.J.Eq. 419, 420-421, 116 A. 707 (E. & A.1922); Jenkins v. Kaplan, 53 N.J.Super. 582, 587, 148 A.2d 33 (App.Div.1959). See also, Sinclair Refining Co. v......
-
Crewe Corp. v. Feiler
...being to certain 'contemplated' alterations, which concededly are not those here involved. See Braunstein v. McGrory Stores Corp., 93 N.J.Eq. 419, 116 A. 707, 23 A.L.R. 133 (E. & A. 1921). Upon reargument, counsel for defendant stressed the fact that the parties had struck out a printed cla......
-
Brechman v. Adamar of New Jersey, Inc.
...is also unenforceable because of its nonconsensual assignment. As to assignability generally, see S. M. Braunstein, Inc. v. McCrory Stores Corp., 93 N.J.Eq. 419, 116 A. 707 (E. & A.1922). For all of the reasons stated above, it is the conclusion of this court that (1) the subject matter of ......