Bell v. del Campo

Superior Court of Delaware

Bell v. del Campo

105 A. 835, 30 Del. 288, 7 Boyce 288, 1919 Del. LEXIS 27

Superior Court of Delaware·Decided March 25, 1919·No. Certiorari No. 23·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Boyce, J.

[1] The court is of the opinion that the statement filed in this case is not in substantial compliance with the statute either in form or substance.

[2] The subletting of demised premises in violation of a stipulation in the lease not to sublet the same without the consent of the owner is not sufficient, in itself, to support the remedy afforded by the statute for forcible detainer.

The judgment below is reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Boyce, J.

[1] The court is of the opinion that the statement filed in this case is not in substantial compliance with the statute either in form or substance.

[2] The subletting of demised premises in violation of a stipulation in the lease not to sublet the same without the consent of the owner is not sufficient, in itself, to support the remedy afforded by the statute for forcible detainer.

The judgment below is reversed.

Bell v. del Campo, 105 A. 835, 30 Del. 288, 7 Boyce 288, 1919 Del. LEXIS 27 (Del. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

105 A. 835 (Bell v. del Campo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related