Silberg v. Klarfield

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Silberg v. Klarfield

35 A.2d 221, 131 N.J.L. 92, 1944 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 185

DecidedJanuary 5, 1944

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.2d 221 (Silberg v. Klarfield) 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

Silberg v. Klarfield, 35 A.2d 221, 131 N.J.L. 92, 1944 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 185 (N.J. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff-appellant sued in the Pirst District Court of the City of Newark to recover $50 on each of six counts, plus attorney’s fees and costs, upon the allegation that the defendant-appellee had demanded and received from the plaintiff the sum of $35 per month for six months, from April, 1943, to October, 1943, for a dwelling unit, while the maximum rent permitted under a regulation established by the Administrator of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1943 was $33 per. month. The trial judge held “that this suit was in fact a proceeding to collect penalties not imposed *93 or authorized by any statute of the State of New Jersey; that this court had no jurisdiction and dismissed the suit.” Plaintiff thereupon took this appeal.

We conclude that this appeal is controlled by the recent opinion of this court in Beasley v. Gottlieb, 131 N. J. L. 117, which leads to a reversal of the judgment in this ease. Costs to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff-appellant sued in the Pirst District Court of the City of Newark to recover $50 on each of six counts, plus attorney’s fees and costs, upon the allegation that the defendant-appellee had demanded and received from the plaintiff the sum of $35 per month for six months, from April, 1943, to October, 1943, for a dwelling unit, while the maximum rent permitted under a regulation established by the Administrator of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1943 was $33 per. month. The trial judge held “that this suit was in fact a proceeding to collect penalties not imposed *93 or authorized by any statute of the State of New Jersey; that this court had no jurisdiction and dismissed the suit.” Plaintiff thereupon took this appeal.

We conclude that this appeal is controlled by the recent opinion of this court in Beasley v. Gottlieb, 131 N. J. L. 117, which leads to a reversal of the judgment in this ease. Costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.2d 221, 131 N.J.L. 92, 1944 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silberg-v-klarfield-nj-1944.