
    Frederick M. Lotterle, Resp’t, v. John Murphy, Appl’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed February 13, 1893.)
    
    Summary proceedings — Jurisdiction of state courts over land ceded FOR BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
    The United States leased a portion of the Brooklyn navy yard premises to plaintiff, who sublet to defendant, jHeld, that state courts have jurisdiction of a summary proceeding for nonpayment of rent under said sublease.
    
      (Barrett v. Palmer, 47 St. Rep., 876, followed.)
    Appeal from judgment of the Kings county court, affirming a final order in summary proceedings made by a justice of the-peace.
    
      James J. Rogers, for app’lt; S. T. Maddox, for resp’t.
   Barnard, P. J.

The United States government rent, by written lease, to the plaintiff, landlord, certain premises in Wallabout Bay, Kings county, which are part of the navy yard premises. The defendant, John Murphy, hired of Lotterle a part of the premises at a fixed rent and he has failed to pay. The case is a clear one under our laws in respect to the dispossessing of delinquent tenants, if the state courts have jurisdiction over the lands. The point seems to be settled in Barrett v. Palmer, 47 St. Rep., 876, that the jurisdiction of the state courts continue unchanged, except so far as the use of the lands is antagonistic to the interference of the state courts. As the case stands there is no such antagonism. The government of the United States has put the lands in the possession of the plaintiff for rent and for the private use of the plaintiff; and the defendant has taken these lands under similar conditions. The United States government has passed no laws so as to enable its tenant to get his rent of one who leases from him. The ordinary state laws cover the case, therefore,, of necessity.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Pratt, J.

We are not able to distinguish this case from Barrett v. Palmer, 47 St. Rep., 876, where the court of appeals held that the acquisition of lands by the general government does not operate to oust the judicial authority of the state. From that it follows that the justice of the peace had jurisdiction of the proceeding.

We have examined the other objections raised and do not find error.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Dykman, J., concurs.  