Mattice v. Lord
New York Supreme Court
THIS action was founded on two leases under seal, one for twelve years and the other for two lives. It was brought to recover rents of the lands described therein, which the lessee, in and by the leases, had covenanted to pay.
Read the full summary
THIS action was founded on two leases under seal, one for twelve years and the other for two lives. It was brought to recover rents of the lands described therein, which the lessee, in and by the leases, had covenanted to pay. It was provided in ea,ch lease, that if the yearly rents reserved “ should he in arrear or unpaid or unperformed in part or in all by the space of twenty days next after the respective days and times appointed for the paying and performing thereof, that then, or in either of these cases,” the leases and the estates granted should cease, determine and he and become…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Balcom, J.
The principal question in this case is, whether the bringing of the action by the plaintiff to rec'over possession of the demised premises, by reason of the non-payment of rent for the space of twenty days next after it became due, and the obtaining of a verdict in that action, for the possession of the premises, is a bar to this action for such rent.
The lessee covenanted, that if the rent should be in arrear or unpaid for the space of twenty days next after the day specified for its payment, that then the leases and the estates granted should cease, determine, and be…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McKeon v. WhitneyCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1846
- Holmes v. DavisNew York Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by1 opinion
- American Trust & Savings Bank v. GitneskeyOhio Court of Appeals · 1936