Lawrence v. Williams
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an action by a lessor to recover the possession of the demised premises, upon the ground that the defendant Williams, the lessee, had broken a covenant in the lease, not to underlet without the consent of the plaintiff, and that for such breach, the plaintiff, by the terms of the lease, was entitled to re-enter. The complaint averred á breach of an under-letting by Williams to the other defendants.
Read the full summary
This was an action by a lessor to recover the possession of the demised premises, upon the ground that the defendant Williams, the lessee, had broken a covenant in the lease, not to underlet without the consent of the plaintiff, and that for such breach, the plaintiff, by the terms of the lease, was entitled to re-enter. The complaint averred á breach of an under-letting by Williams to the other defendants. Williams answered separately as follows: The said defendant, John Williams, by A. J. Perry, his attorney, separately answering the complaint of the said plaintiff, denies, that in…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Duer, J.
In our opinion, the only reasonable interpretation of the defendant’s answer, is, that it admits the fact of underletting, and denies merely that the act was a violation of his covenant, and without the consent of the plaintiff. The denial that the underletting was a breach of his covenant, as denying a conclusion of law, and not the existence of a fact, must be rejected as immaterial. And if the answer is to be construed as averring that the plaintiff gave his consent to the underletting, this was a matter of defence, the burden of proving which rested upon the defendant. The plaintiff was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- De Groot v. Van DuzerNew York Supreme Court · 1838
3Cited by2 opinions
- Wall v. . the Buffalo Water Works CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Safford v. HyndsNew York Supreme Court · 1862