Holliday v. Marshall
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of covenant, tried at the Washington circuit, loth June, 1810, before Mr. Justice Van Ness. The plaintiff declared on a lease, dated 6th January, 1792, by which the defendant demised to the plaintiff a lot of land, for the term of eight years from November 6, 1791. The lease contained the following covenant on the part of the defendant, to wit, “ that the said Royer Hollidau, his heirs, executors, administrators ° y7 7 7 or assigns, have either a renewal…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of covenant, tried at the Washington circuit, loth June, 1810, before Mr. Justice Van Ness. The plaintiff declared on a lease, dated 6th January, 1792, by which the defendant demised to the plaintiff a lot of land, for the term of eight years from November 6, 1791. The lease contained the following covenant on the part of the defendant, to wit, “ that the said Royer Hollidau, his heirs, executors, administrators ° y7 7 7 or assigns, have either a renewal of the lease, on such ° terms as should be agreed upon, or in case the land should be sold, that the said Holliday, his…
1Per curiam
1. The assignment of the lease is good without being under seal. This is obvious from the language of the statute of frauds, which declares an assignment not good, unless it be by deed or note in writing; and such was the decision of the K. B. in the case of Fry v. Phillips. (5 Burr. 2832.)
2. The plaintiff is not entitled to interest on the 76O dollars. The value of the improvements or amount off a damages was uncertain and unliquidated. Although covenant provided for an appraisement of the improved ments, in case the land was not sold to the ¡dahitiff; ylt the defendant was not a party to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Kidd v. . McCormickNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Van Rensselaer's Executors v. JewettNew York Supreme Court · 1848