|
|
Levy Leasing Co., Inc. v. Siegel, 258 U.S. 242 (1922)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Levy Leasing Co., Inc. v. Siegel, 258 U.S. 242 (1922)
Levy Leasing Company Inc. v. Siegel Nos. 285 and 287 Argued January 24, 25, 1922 Decided March 20, 1922 258 U.S. 242
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
1. Chapters 942 and 947 of the New York Housing Laws, which suspend the landlord’s right of action to recover possession from his tenant, except under specified conditions, and c. 944, providing that, in an action for rent under an agreement for premises occupied for dwelling purposes, it shall be a defense that the rent is unjust and unreasonable and the agreement oppressive, but permitting the landlord to plead, prove and recover a fair and reasonable rent, are constitutional. P. 245. Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U.S. 170.
2. The obligation to pay specified rent cannot be said to be impaired by a limitation on the recovery to what is fair and reasonable, made by a statute existing when the lease was made and carried into a subsequent statute. P. 248.
3. A statute making it a defense in an action for rent that the rent agreed is unjust and unreasonable and the agreement oppressive provides a standard sufficiently definite to satisfy the due process clause of the Constitution. P. 249. United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, distinguished.
194 App.Div. 482, 521, 230 N.Y. 634, 652, affirmed.
Error to two judgments entered in the Supreme Court of New York pursuant to remittiturs from the Court of Appeals and dismissing actions brought by the present plaintiffs in error, in the first case to recover rent under a lease and in the second to effect a tenant holding over after the expiration of his lease. The premises leased were apartments in New York City. In both cases, there were appeals in the first instance to the Appellate Division, and thence to the Court of Appeals. A summary of the New York Housing Laws, the provisions of which, as applied in favor of the tenants, were questioned on constitutional grounds, will be found in a note to the report of Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U.S. 170.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Levy Leasing Co., Inc. v. Siegel, 258 U.S. 242 (1922) in 258 U.S. 242 258 U.S. 243. Original Sources, accessed November 25, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=M87BSZGI23NULJC.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Levy Leasing Co., Inc. v. Siegel, 258 U.S. 242 (1922), in 258 U.S. 242, page 258 U.S. 243. Original Sources. 25 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=M87BSZGI23NULJC.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Levy Leasing Co., Inc. v. Siegel, 258 U.S. 242 (1922). cited in 1922, 258 U.S. 242, pp.258 U.S. 243. Original Sources, retrieved 25 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=M87BSZGI23NULJC.
|