Collins v. Adams
Collins v. Adams
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This was an action on the Eederal Housing and Rent Act, U. S. C. A., Tit. 50, App. § 1891, et seq., to recover triple damages for rent paid in excess of the maximum, set by the Office of Price Administration. The jury brought in a verdict against Adams and Robinson, the two defendants, for the full amount asked. Only Robinson appeals.
The first point argued is that the verdict was against the w'eight of the evidence. The premises in question were the third floor, six rooms, of No. 211 Thirteenth Avenue, Newark. The maximum rent had been established ten years ago at $24 a month, and had never been changed. On November 14, 1950, the plaintiff Collins rented the flat at $120 a month; he took possession and paid the stipulated rental for eight months. Plaintiff’s rental agreement was made with Adams and to him plaintiff paid the rent for the eight months, except perhaps $60 in all, that he may have paid to Robinson. The verdict against Robinson cannot stand on any theory, except that Adams was acting as the agent of Robinson.
Both defendants testified that Robinson, who was the owner of the property, had rented the third floor to Adams in 1948; that Adams lived in the flat himself for nearly two years, then moved to other quarters and sublet to plain
These conflicts presented a question for the jury. If they believed the testimony of the plaintiff and his famity, they could infer that Adams had been acting as Robinson’s agent, and that Robinson was equally liable with Adams. The evidence sufficiently supports the verdict.
The appellant also points out that the ceiling price had been set for the fiat unfurnished, without a heating stove or refrigerator, and without hot water, heat or light. When Adams moved out and rented the rooms to plaintiff, he left in the apartment his own furniture, electric refrigerator and stove, all of which he included in the letting and he also agreed to supply oil for the stove and to pay for gas and electricity. Appellant argues that the maximum price of $34 was inapplicable to this letting because it embraced the furniture and the additional services.
The rule is settled that when the maximum rent has been fixed for any controlled housing accommodations in an unfurnished state and thereafter they are rented furnished, or with additional services included, the maximum remains in effect until it is adjusted or a new maximum
The judgment is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.