Masten Realty Co., Inc. v. James

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Masten Realty Co., Inc. v. James

16 A.2d 464, 125 N.J.L. 529, 1940 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 48

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedNovember 29, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 16 A.2d 464 (Masten Realty Co., Inc. v. James) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Masten Realty Co., Inc. v. James, 16 A.2d 464, 125 N.J.L. 529, 1940 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 48 (N.J. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Bodine, J.

The plaintiff had judgment for commissions due it was claimed under a lease of June 9th, 1936, between Marie D. Packer, landlord, and LeRoy Roder, tenant, for premises at 256 West Hudson avenue, Englewood. The lease provided : “Ninth Section: That the said Landlord appoints S. L. Masten as agent during occupancy by said tenant and agrees to pay him a commission of five (5%) per cent, of the yearly rent upon the signing of this lease and any renewals thereof. In the event of sale to aforesaid tenant, a commission of five (5%) per cent, of the sale price -will be paid.” The lease -was not recorded. Commissions for the year ending August 1st, 1939, amounted to $39 for which there was judgment.

By deed of June 2d, 1939, the defendant became the owner of the premises. There is nothing in the record to indicate that she assumed her grantor's obligation, or had any knowledge thereof. In fact, it is not at all clear that the broker, or his assignee, was entitled to commissions from the previous *530 owner. Assuming, but not deciding, that point it seems too clear to require demonstration that a purchaser of real estate does not impliedly assume obligations that do not run with the land purchased.

The respondent argues that a tenant’s possession of the premises was notice of a broker’s right to commissions. Not so. Possession is notice of possessor’s rights but of nothing-more.

The lease for the term from August 1st, 1937, to 1938, contains no clause for the broker’s benefit. Thereafter, the leasing was from month to month. Hence, the assumption made that the original owner may have been obligated is a violent one to say the least.

Suffice it to say for the purposes of this ease, that the defendant was never a party to the contract sued upon, and that obligations to answer for the debt of another must be evidenced in writing and be supported by a consideration. See statute of frauds, N. J. S. A. 25 :l-5.

Judgment is reversed.

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

Bodine, J.

The plaintiff had judgment for commissions due it was claimed under a lease of June 9th, 1936, between Marie D. Packer, landlord, and LeRoy Roder, tenant, for premises at 256 West Hudson avenue, Englewood. The lease provided : “Ninth Section: That the said Landlord appoints S. L. Masten as agent during occupancy by said tenant and agrees to pay him a commission of five (5%) per cent, of the yearly rent upon the signing of this lease and any renewals thereof. In the event of sale to aforesaid tenant, a commission of five (5%) per cent, of the sale price -will be paid.” The lease -was not recorded. Commissions for the year ending August 1st, 1939, amounted to $39 for which there was judgment.

By deed of June 2d, 1939, the defendant became the owner of the premises. There is nothing in the record to indicate that she assumed her grantor's obligation, or had any knowledge thereof. In fact, it is not at all clear that the broker, or his assignee, was entitled to commissions from the previous *530 owner. Assuming, but not deciding, that point it seems too clear to require demonstration that a purchaser of real estate does not impliedly assume obligations that do not run with the land purchased.

The respondent argues that a tenant’s possession of the premises was notice of a broker’s right to commissions. Not so. Possession is notice of possessor’s rights but of nothing-more.

The lease for the term from August 1st, 1937, to 1938, contains no clause for the broker’s benefit. Thereafter, the leasing was from month to month. Hence, the assumption made that the original owner may have been obligated is a violent one to say the least.

Suffice it to say for the purposes of this ease, that the defendant was never a party to the contract sued upon, and that obligations to answer for the debt of another must be evidenced in writing and be supported by a consideration. See statute of frauds, N. J. S. A. 25 :l-5.

Judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.2d 464, 125 N.J.L. 529, 1940 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masten-realty-co-inc-v-james-nj-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack