Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court And, at Law, in the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New Jersey Volume 58 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated.1897 Excerpt: ... 29 Vroom. Tims v. Spragg. JOHN TIMS v. ARTHUK SPRAGG. 1. The District Court of Newark has jurisdiction to maintain a suit to the extent of $300, under the twenty-seventh section of the act concerning landlord and tenant. Gen. Stat., p. 1921. 2. It is a private suit for a private wrong, and can be maintained only by the party injured, which distinguishes it from Koch v. Vanderhoff, 20 Vroom 619. On certiorari to review a judgment of the First District Court of Newark. Argued at June Term, 1895, before Justices Van Syckel and Lippincott. For the plaintiff, John R. Hardin. For the defendant, James M. Trimble. The opinion of the court was delivered by Van Syckel, J. The subject of review is the judgment of the First District Court of the city of Newark, in an action of debt brought by Spragg against Tims, to recover double rent for willfully holding over after the end of his term, under the provisions of the twenty-seventh section of the Landlord and Tenant act. Gen. Stat., p. 1921. That section provides that the person so holding over shall, for and during the time he so holds over, pay to the person unlawfully kept out of possession "at the rate of double the yearly value of the lands, for so long a time as the same are detained, to be recovered in any court of record in this state by action of debt, whereunto the defendant or defendants shall be obliged to give special bail, and against the recovering of which said penalty there shall be no relief in equity." The only question to be decided is whether the District Court had jurisdiction of the case. Several grounds are relied upon to show a want of jurisdiction: Vol.. xxix. 18 Tims v. Spragg. 08 N. J. L. First. It is insisted that the District Court had no power to try an action for a penalty in excess of $1...