Linden & Fritz v. Hepburn
The Superior Court of New York City
This case came before the court on two appeals taken by the defendants Hepburn and Wills, (who alone defended the suit,) one, from an order at chambers granting a motion for an injunction, the other from a judgment at the special term overruling a demurrer to the complaint. The complaint made the following case.
Read the full summary
This case came before the court on two appeals taken by the defendants Hepburn and Wills, (who alone defended the suit,) one, from an order at chambers granting a motion for an injunction, the other from a judgment at the special term overruling a demurrer to the complaint. The complaint made the following case. James H. Roosevelt leased to A. and F. Roux, the houses and lots, 478 and 480 Broadway, in the city of Hew York, for eight years from ■Hay 1st, 1845. The lease provided, that if the rent should be unpaid, or default be made in any of the lessee’s covenants, the lessor might re-enter.…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Sandford, J.
The only ground presented by the demurrer which required any serious consideration, is that no right of entry exists in the plaintiffs; that the lease executed by them to West, operated as an assignment of the *670original lease, pro tanto, and there being no reversionary interest in the plaintiffs, they cannot recover.
Whatever the effect of this lease might be, as between West and the original lessor of the demised premises, we have no doubt that as between West and the plaintiffs, it is to be regarded as a sub-lease, and not as an assignment of the original term. The right to re-enter was…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Conger v. . DuryeeNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Birdseye v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- Miller v. HavensMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Meyers v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
- Wygant v. DahlNebraska Supreme Court · 1889