Case Name: WILLIAM B. NATELL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HENRY HENLEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND MAYFAIR FABRICS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1968-10-11
Citations: 103 N.J. Super. 161
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAM B. NATELL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HENRY HENLEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND MAYFAIR FABRICS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 103
Pages: 161–162

Head Matter:
WILLIAM B. NATELL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HENRY HENLEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND MAYFAIR FABRICS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued September 30, 1968
Decided October 11, 1968.
See also 101 N. J. Super. 363.
Before Judges Coneoed, Kilkenny and Leonard.
Mr. Robert F. Golquhoun argued the cause for appellant.
Mr. Allan Maitlin argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Feuerstein & Sachs, attorneys; Mr. Peter 8. Valentine, on the brief).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed essentially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Ackerman in the Law Division, 97 N. J. Super. 116 (1967), except those based upon the incidence of subrogation in favor of the landlord's insurer. The insurance company is not a party to this appeal (even if it is the real party in interest as a subrogee); its contractual rights vis-a-vis the landlord are not here involved;, and the lease in question should be read and interpreted to ascertain the mutual intention of the sole parties to it, landlord and tenant, just as the Supreme Court did in the case where the tenant was suing the landlord, Mayfair Fabrics v. Henley, 48 N. J. 483 (1967).
Judgment affirmed.