Remsen v. Conklin
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of covenant for the non-payment of rent. The declaration was on a lease of a lot of land in Oneida county, from the executors of R. to one James Farr, who assigned the same to the defendant, dated the 19th of August, 1794. The covenant was as follows: “Yielding and paying, &c. yearly, and every year, (after four years from the 1st of August, 1794,) upon the first day of February in every year, at such place in the city of Albany, as the said parties of the…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of covenant for the non-payment of rent. The declaration was on a lease of a lot of land in Oneida county, from the executors of R. to one James Farr, who assigned the same to the defendant, dated the 19th of August, 1794. The covenant was as follows: “Yielding and paying, &c. yearly, and every year, (after four years from the 1st of August, 1794,) upon the first day of February in every year, at such place in the city of Albany, as the said parties of the first part, their heirs or assigns, shall, for that purpose, from time to time, appoint, the yearly rent of ninety-two…
1Opinion of the Court
Spencer, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. There is a distinction running through the books between a proceeding by the lessor, with'a view to a forfeiture of the estate of the tenant, or to impose a penalty on him, and a proceeding to recover the rent in an action of covenant, or by distress. In the two former cases, there must be a strict demand of the rent on the very day it is payable. In the latter cases, there need not to be a previous- demand, although the rent be payable on demand. But in such case, the rent must be payable on the land ; and then it would be a good defence for…
2Cited by3 opinions
- M'Murphy v. MinotSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1827
- Coon v. BrickettSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1819
- Peck v. Reid, New York County Courts1910