TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bendit v. H. L. R. Holding Co.

Reuben Bendit, Plaintiff, Prentiss M. Brown, Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H. L. R. Holding Company, Defendant-Appellee

Bendit v. H. L. R. Holding Co., 35 A.2d 53 (N.J. 1944)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 5, 1944
Judges
Donges, Porter
Citations
35 A.2d 53131 N.J.L. 911944 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 184

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff brought suit in the First District Court 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 $60 per month for six months from July, 1942, to December, 1942, for a dwelling unit, while the maximum rent permitted under a regulation established by the Administrator of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 was $58 per month. Plaintiff-appellant, Prentiss M. Brown, OPA Administrator, was permitted to intervene as party plaintiff. The trial judge held "that this suit was in fad; a proceeding to collect penalties not imposed or authorized by any statute of the State of New Jersey; that this court had no jurisdiction and dismissed the suit.” Plaintiff Brown thereupon took this appeal.

Although the plaintiff Brown was permitted to intervene as a party plaintiff, he filed no state of demand and made no claim to any recovery on behalf of the agency he represents. We assume in this proceeding that his intervention, as stated in the notice of motion for leave to intervene, was solely for the purpose of assisting the plaintiff Bendit to enforce his right to recovery and to assert his. Bendit’s, right to proceed *92 in. the District Court. In this situation, the right of -the OPA administrator to proceed in the District Court for recovery in his own behalf under the federal statute is not raised by the pleadings, is not presented for determination and is not passed upon.

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 case. Costs to abide the event.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1951: 119512026peak 1951 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Denison v. Tocker229 P.2d 285 (N.M. 1951)

Most recent

  1. Denison v. Tocker229 P.2d 285 (N.M. 1951)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list