Case Name: J. & S. BARNES against J. NICHOLSON
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1807-11
Citations: 2 N.J.L. 326
Docket Number: 
Parties: [*] J. & S. BARNES against J. NICHOLSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 307–309

Head Matter:
[*] J. & S. BARNES against J. NICHOLSON.
OH CERTIORARI.
In case of unlawful detainer. Affirmance. — The facts to be tried are whether parties were landlord 'and tenants to each other, and whether the tenants held over after the lease expired. The estate of plaintiff must be set out, but his title not to be tried.
This action was commenced by Nicholson, the plaintiff below, against the two Barnes, the plaintiffs in certiorari, tinder the 5th section of the act, concerning forcible entries and detainers. This section is plainly intended as a summary remedy for landlords against refractory tenants, who hold over the lands after the expiration of their leases — -the proceeding by way of complaint made in writing to the justice, who is directed to try the truth thereof by jury. The plaintiff below, stated in his complaint, that the defendants, on the 4th of April, 1807, having been tenants in the premises which they described, whereof and wherein the said Joseph Nicholson, (the plaintiff) was seized of an estate as tenant for years, by virtue of the last will and testament of Jacob Miller, deceased; and that the said defendants held under him; and that defendants being in possession of the said premises as tenants from year to year under him, the plaintiff, did, on the said 14th of April, 1807, hold over, and still do unlawfully and without force hold over, and unlawfully detain from him the possession of the said premises, alleging notice as required by the act. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff.
It appeared in evidence at the trial, that the defendants accepted a lease of the premises from the [237] plaintiff the 25th March, 1806, to end the 25th March, 1807; that the lease purported to be a lease from Nicholson and his wife; but that the wife had not signed the lease, therefore it was a lease from the plaintiff to the defendants; that on the expiration of this lease, the defendants refused to give up the premises to Nicholson, of whom they had it; but took another lease from the guardians of certain infants, with whom Nicholson was in controversy about the title. At the time of giving [*] the lease, Nicholson was in possession in right of his wife, who claimed in virtue of the following clause in the.will of Jacob Miller, her former husband: “ I likewise bequeath to her (that is his wife) the profits arising from the lands and improvements that is devised to her daughter Rachel, until she arrives at the age of eighteen years.” — This was the land for which the action was brought. —During the continuance of the lease from Nicholson to the Barnes, the wife- of Nicholson, in whose right he held the land, died.
Mr. Leake, for the plaintiffs in certiorari,
the Barnes’, contended — That the merits of the title could not be inquired into in this action; and then proceeded with an argument at great length, citing between forty and fifty authorites to prove that Nicholson, the plaintiff below, had no title to the premises in question.
Mr. M’llvaine, for the defendant
Nicholson, endeavored, to show, that his client had title; but whether he had or not was immaterial, on the question before the court: he was the landlord,' the lessor; the Barnes’ treated him as such, and took a lease under him, and were estopped from saying that he was not. They had now attorned to his adversaries, and held over. The attornment was void by express statute; and the holding over an unlawful detainer, under the 5th section of the act concerning forcible entries and detainers; that although a plaintiff in this case was bound to show his estate, yet that he was not bound to show his title.
Mr. Leake, in reply,
said, that the lease was not made by Nicholson in his own right, but in right of his wife.

Opinion:
By the Court.
— This is simply a case of landlord and tenant. The facts to be tried were, whether the plaintiff below was the lessor and let the land to the defendants, — _ whether they were tenants and took the land of the plaintiff, and whether they have holden over after the expiration of their lease? This is all found by the verdict of the jury, in favor of the plaintiff below, [238] [*] and rightly. Although the estate which the plaintiff hath in the land must be set out, yet it is not intended to try the title in this action.
Judgment affirmed.
Vide Griff. Law Reg. 1307; 7 Halst. 199.