Vollkommer v. Menge

7 Citing cases

  1. Vollkommer v. Menge

    192 A. 373 (N.J. 1937)   Cited 6 times

    A prior judgment of nonsuit was reversed, and a venire de novo awarded, upon the ground that, due to an erroneous conception of the apposite legal principles, material evidence offered by plaintiff was barred. 116 N.J.L. 82. The single point raised by the reasons for reversal is whether there is any basis in the proofs for the finding of negligence chargeable to the landlord.

  2. McCarthy v. Bye

    191 A. 811 (N.J. 1937)   Cited 3 times

    Thus if he performs it negligently, whereby damage results, he is liable for such negligence. Cf. LaBrasca v. Hinchman, 81 N.J.L. 367; 79 Atl. Rep. 885; Nilsson v. Abruzzo, 107 N.J.L. 327; 153 Atl. Rep. 486; Walsh v. Hackensack Water Co., 13 N.J. Mis.R. 815; 181 Atl. Rep. 422; Volkommer v. Menge, 116 N.J.L. 82; 182 Atl. Rep. 347. What are the facts? They are to be found only in the proofs adduced for the plaintiff; none was offered for the defendant.

  3. Folley v. United B. L. Assn

    186 A. 591 (N.J. 1936)   Cited 6 times
    In Folley v. United B. L. Ass'n, 117 N.J.L. 54, 186 A. 591, the Supreme Court held that the landlord is not liable for damages caused by lack of repairs, unless obligated so to do by distinct contract; that a promise made after execution of lease cannot be enforced because of lack of consideration.

    At common law, a mandatary was answerable only for misfeasance as distinguished from non-feasance. Vollkommer v. Menge, 116 N.J.L. 82. And in this state, a well settled principle of the law of contracts limits the class to whom the duty is owing. Clyne v. Helmes, supra; Reilly v. Feldman, supra; Vollkommer v. Menge, supra. It is likewise the established rule that a promise by the lessor, made subsequent to the execution and delivery of the lease, to make repairs, or to abate a portion of the rent, is unenforceable. Levine v. Blumenthal, 117 Id. 23; Clyne v. Helmes,supra. See, also, Williston on Contracts ( Rev. Ed.), § 142. So testing the instant case, the landlord did not assume a legal obligation in respect of the condition of the premises by reason of anything said by its president when, subsequent to the making of the contract of lease, consent was given to the lessee to enter, solely for her own benefit and advantage, into possession of the premises before the commencement of the stated term.

  4. Rosenberg v. Krinick

    186 A. 446 (N.J. 1936)   Cited 8 times

    The issue in the Peterson case concerned a common stairway. It should be observed that nothing said in the Peterson case justifies the conclusion that a promise by a landlord to make repairs, under the proofs here exhibited, needs no new consideration to support it. Moreover, the second exception referred to in the opinion, dealing with what might be the result if in fact there were a promise made by the landlord, is clearly an obiter dictum and does not, when given fair interpretation, overrule the holding in Clyne v. Helmes, supra. Nor does the holding in Vollkommer v. Menge, 116 N.J.L. 82; 182 Atl. Rep. 347, avail plaintiffs. It is clearly distinguishable. That case involves the duty of the landlord to use reasonable care once he undertakes to make repairs.

  5. Buska v. Aquinaldo

    84 N.J. Super. 577 (Law Div. 1964)   Cited 8 times

    However, in Deak v. Perth Amboy Gas Light Co., 1 N.J. Misc. 457, 140 A. 439 ( Sup. Ct. 1923), a death action based on negligence, Justice Bergen said that the statute applied. In Vollkommer v. Menge, 116 N.J.L. 82 ( Sup. Ct. 1935), a negligence action, the court assumed the applicability of the statute to testimony by the adverse party to transactions with decedent and held that the exclusion did not apply to transactions with the executor. A Pennsylvania statute providing that "where any party to a thing or contract in action is dead" a surviving party was not "a competent witness to any matter occurring before the death of said party," was held to apply to negligence actions. Wright v. Wilson, 154 F.2d 616, 170 A.L.R. 1237 (3 Cir. 1946); Lockard v. Vare, 230 Pa. 591, 79 A. 802 ( Sup. Ct. 1911).

  6. Gaffney v. America on Wheels

    16 N.J. Super. 484 (App. Div. 1951)   Cited 4 times

    Elementary also is the principle that the duty to prove negligence rests on the shoulders of the party who alleges it, and so it has been stated with conspicuous frequency that where the evidence is equally consistent with the absence of negligence as with the existence of negligence on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff cannot prevail. Alvino v. Public Service Railway Co., 97 N.J.L. 526 ( E. A. 1922); Vollkommer v. Menge, 116 N.J.L. 82 ( Sup. Ct. 1935); Callahan v. National Lead Co., supra. Whenever we are confined to the consideration of purely circumstantial evidence, the contrast between the absence or existence of negligence often becomes exceedingly subtle where the mishap is of a variety known occasionally to occur to one in the absence of any negligence on the part of another.

  7. Pyle v. Fid. Philadelphia Trust Co.

    18 N.J. Misc. 54 (Cir. Ct. 1940)   Cited 2 times

    For example, where a landlord voluntarily and gratuitously attempts to make repairs to the demised premises and negligently performs such work. La Brasca v. Hinchman, 81 N.J.L. 367, 79 A. 885; Broame v. New Jersey Conference, 83 N.J. L. 621, 83 A. 901; Charney v. Cohen, 94 N.J. L. 381, 110 A. 698, affirmed, 95 N.J.L. 538, 112 A. 893; Nilsson v. Abruzzo, 107 N.J.L. 327, 153 A. 486; Vollkommer v. Menge, 116 N.J.L. 82, 182 A. 347; Edwards v. Stein, 121 N.J.L. 233, 2 A.2d 44; or where the landlord assumes the duty to provide and maintain a light upon a stairway; Rhodes v. Fuller Land & Improvement Co., 92 N.J. L. 569, 106 A. 400; Stathos v. Bunevich, 107 N.J.L. 269, 153 A. 572; or where the owner of a building constructed for public uses temporarily leases it for a public function. Eckman v. Atlantic Lodge, 68 N.J.L. 10, 52 A. 293; Johnson v. Zemel, 109 N.J.L. 197, 160 A. 356.