Zuest v. Ingra

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Zuest v. Ingra

38 A.2d 457, 132 N.J.L. 37, 1944 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 91

DecidedJuly 17, 1944

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.2d 457 (Zuest v. Ingra) 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

Zuest v. Ingra, 38 A.2d 457, 132 N.J.L. 37, 1944 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 91 (N.J. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

*38 Per Curiam.

The action is by tenants against their landlord to recover the penalty provided by section 205 (e) of the federal Emergency Price Control Act, in cases where rents of housing accommodations have been “stabilized” under that act. The cited section provides a penalty of thrice the excess over maximum price, or $50, whichever is the greater. The maximum rent officially fixed in this case was $27 per month, and the plaintiffs for two successive months paid rent of $30 to one Thomas Earina, taking his personal receipt for the same. On this evidence, judgment was rendered for the penalty of $50 per month.

We conclude that there was error. The case is barren of any direct evidence that the defendant, who became owner just prior to the collection of the $30, had directed any increase of rent, or had engaged Thomas Earina to collect the rent, or had received it from Thomas.

The action is for a penalty, and the law is settled that in a penal action against a master for the act of a servant the general rule of respondent superior in civil actions does not apply, and direct authority should be shown. 25 C. J. 1193-4: Roeber v. Society, 47 N. J. L. 237.

The judgment is reversed, with costs.

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

*38 Per Curiam.

The action is by tenants against their landlord to recover the penalty provided by section 205 (e) of the federal Emergency Price Control Act, in cases where rents of housing accommodations have been “stabilized” under that act. The cited section provides a penalty of thrice the excess over maximum price, or $50, whichever is the greater. The maximum rent officially fixed in this case was $27 per month, and the plaintiffs for two successive months paid rent of $30 to one Thomas Earina, taking his personal receipt for the same. On this evidence, judgment was rendered for the penalty of $50 per month.

We conclude that there was error. The case is barren of any direct evidence that the defendant, who became owner just prior to the collection of the $30, had directed any increase of rent, or had engaged Thomas Earina to collect the rent, or had received it from Thomas.

The action is for a penalty, and the law is settled that in a penal action against a master for the act of a servant the general rule of respondent superior in civil actions does not apply, and direct authority should be shown. 25 C. J. 1193-4: Roeber v. Society, 47 N. J. L. 237.

The judgment is reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.2d 457, 132 N.J.L. 37, 1944 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zuest-v-ingra-nj-1944.