Zucker v. Dehm

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Zucker v. Dehm

26 A.2d 564, 128 N.J.L. 435, 1942 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 118

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJune 9, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 26 A.2d 564 (Zucker v. Dehm) 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

Zucker v. Dehm, 26 A.2d 564, 128 N.J.L. 435, 1942 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 118 (N.J. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Bodine, J.

Plaintiff: appeals from a judgment of no cause of action. In August, L940, he leased to the defendant an apartment in the-building ho owned at 115 Christie Street, Ridgefield Park. The lease was for a term of one yeaT and one month beginning September 1st, 1940, at a monthly rental of $45 a month, payable on the 15th day of each month. The defendants vacated the apartment without permit and without payment of the June, July and August rent. There was a half month free of rent. The plaintiff having found a tenant as of September 1st, 1941, sought to recover the rent due for the time of vacancy amounting to $112.50.

The lease contained provisions that “the tenant shall not assign the agreement or underlet the premises or anjr part thereof * * * without the landlord’s or agent’s consent in writing.”

The proofs show that the tenant wanted to keep a dog prohibited also without consent, so he wanted to sublet. The *436 landlord was not willing to grant either privilege, so the tenant moved out. In Muller v. Beck, 94 N. J. L. 311, a similar situation existed. The landlord would not submit to a sublease. Mr. Justice Swayze said that he might, for no reason at all, refuse to accept the proposed tenant, and that “the landlord in refusing consent is acting within his right expressly reserved by the lease, and such a reservation is inconsistent with the claim that he must accept the new tenant or forego his rent.”

The landlord was under no duty to accept the new tenant and thereby minimize the defendants’ loss. Joyce v. Bauman, 113 N. J. L. 438. A written agreement is enforced, according to its terms, and courts of law cannot create new bargains however hard the old ones seem. A bargain may not be changed, even if the refusal of change might seem unreasonable and to serve no useful purpose.

The judgment is reversed, with costs.

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

Bodine, J.

Plaintiff: appeals from a judgment of no cause of action. In August, L940, he leased to the defendant an apartment in the-building ho owned at 115 Christie Street, Ridgefield Park. The lease was for a term of one yeaT and one month beginning September 1st, 1940, at a monthly rental of $45 a month, payable on the 15th day of each month. The defendants vacated the apartment without permit and without payment of the June, July and August rent. There was a half month free of rent. The plaintiff having found a tenant as of September 1st, 1941, sought to recover the rent due for the time of vacancy amounting to $112.50.

The lease contained provisions that “the tenant shall not assign the agreement or underlet the premises or anjr part thereof * * * without the landlord’s or agent’s consent in writing.”

The proofs show that the tenant wanted to keep a dog prohibited also without consent, so he wanted to sublet. The *436 landlord was not willing to grant either privilege, so the tenant moved out. In Muller v. Beck, 94 N. J. L. 311, a similar situation existed. The landlord would not submit to a sublease. Mr. Justice Swayze said that he might, for no reason at all, refuse to accept the proposed tenant, and that “the landlord in refusing consent is acting within his right expressly reserved by the lease, and such a reservation is inconsistent with the claim that he must accept the new tenant or forego his rent.”

The landlord was under no duty to accept the new tenant and thereby minimize the defendants’ loss. Joyce v. Bauman, 113 N. J. L. 438. A written agreement is enforced, according to its terms, and courts of law cannot create new bargains however hard the old ones seem. A bargain may not be changed, even if the refusal of change might seem unreasonable and to serve no useful purpose.

The judgment is reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.2d 564, 128 N.J.L. 435, 1942 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zucker-v-dehm-nj-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack