Legal Opinion

Drummond v. Fisher

New York Court of Common Pleas

Decided March 7, 1892PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Motion for reargument.

1Per curiam

For the reasons stated in the opinion, (see 16 N. Y. Supp. 867,) we do not accede to the contention of appellants’ counsel that the allegations contained in the landlord’s petition in the summary proceedings instituted to recover possession of the demised premises involved an admission of the fact of an assignment of the lease to Haskell & Radiker. Neither did The respondent’s attitude upon the trial necessarily assume the existence of *143such an assignment, but, on the contrary, all knowledge of it was distinctly •disclaimed by the respondent’s grantors. We cannot, therefore, assume that…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Thayer v. . MarshNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
  2. Drummond v. FisherNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1892
  3. Schoonmaker v. . BonnieNew York Court of Appeals · 1890

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Lincoln Furniture Co. v. BornsteinNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
  2. Drummond v. FisherNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1892

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API