Stern Holding Co. v. O'Connor

3 Citing cases

  1. Stern Holding Company v. O'Connor

    5 A.2d 794 (N.J. 1939)

    Decided April 21, 1939. On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 121 N.J.L. 282. For the respondent, Schumann Schumann.

  2. State v. Wittenberg

    50 N.J. Super. 74 (App. Div. 1957)   Cited 7 times

    So it must be given its ordinary meaning, in the light of the associated words `offal' and `any decaying vegetable substance' and the subject matter and obvious purpose and scope of the ordinance as a whole. Its meaning here is clearly that first set forth in Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, which is: `offal, as the entrails of an animal or fish, refuse, animal or vegetable matter from a kitchen, market or store.' The term was so defined with respect to both an ordinance and a lease by our old Supreme Court in Stern Holding Co. v. O'Connor, 121 N.J.L. 282 ( Sup.Ct. 1938), affirmed 122 N.J.L. 376 ( E. A. 1939). There cannot be any doubt that what was brought in on September 2 as described by the witness LaRochelle was garbage within the meaning of the ordinance.

  3. Phillips v. Klein

    5 N.J. Super. 176 (App. Div. 1949)   Cited 4 times

    The fact that the zoning ordinance, in effect, restricts them from employing more than four persons in the operation of their dry cleaning establishment does not render applicable the doctrine of Hyland v. Parkside Investment Co., Inc., 10 N.J. Misc. 1148, 1149 ( Sup. Ct. 1932), that a "lease for a single purpose is void if that purpose is unlawful." Cf. The Stern Holding Co. v. O'Connor, 119 N.J.L. 291, 293 ( Sup. Ct. 1938); sc., 121 N.J.L. 282 ( Sup. Ct. 1938); affirmed, 122 N.J.L. 376 ( E. A. 1939). The appellants urge that if they had been permitted by the District Court they would have established that at the time of the execution of the lease they actually contemplated, with the lessor's knowledge, the operation of a dry cleaning establishment employing more than four persons and that this should preclude the plaintiffs' recovery of rent.