From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hilyard v. Heinzer

Court of Errors and Appeals
Oct 19, 1925
130 A. 918 (N.J. 1925)

Opinion

Submitted May 29, 1925 —

Decided October 19, 1925.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose per curiam is reported in 3 N.J. Mis. R. 343.

For the appellants, Charles S. Moore.

For the respondent, Henry W. Lewis.


The memorandum filed in the Supreme Court fully states the facts and correctly decides the points properly cognizable in this case. That court intimates (while disclaiming a decision thereon as outside the case) that a landlord's proceeding to dispossess may proceed on the double grounds of expiration of term and failure to pay rent. We agree that this point is outside the case, and so, neither decide it nor express an opinion on it. In other respects we concur in the views expressed by the Supreme Court and affirm the judgment, for the reasons stated in its per curiam memorandum.

For affirmance — THE CHIEF JUSTICE, PARKER, MINTURN, KATZENBACH, LLOYD, WHITE, GARDNER, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, JJ. 9.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Hilyard v. Heinzer

Court of Errors and Appeals
Oct 19, 1925
130 A. 918 (N.J. 1925)
Case details for

Hilyard v. Heinzer

Case Details

Full title:LESTER F. HILYARD ET AL., PROSECUTORS-APPELLANTS, v. KATIE HEINZER…

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Oct 19, 1925

Citations

130 A. 918 (N.J. 1925)
130 A. 918

Citing Cases

Vineland Shopping Center, Inc. v. De Marco

The established principle is that the trial court had jurisdiction if there was evidence from which it could…

Louclair Realty Co. v. Commercial Lounge, c

And if the affidavit is insufficient, jurisdiction is lacking. Layton v. Dennis, 43 N.J.L. 380; Hilyard v.…