Horton v. New York Central & Hudson River R.R.
New York Supreme Court
Trial by the court. The nature of the action and the facts are fully set forth in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtDaniels, J.
The paramount purpose of this action is to secure relief to the plaintiffs from a forfeiture of a term created by a lease executed to them by George Coit and others on April 28, 1880. By the terms of the lease the rent of the demised premises was made payable in advance, in quarterly installments of §.200 each, on the first days of May, August, November and February in each year. The first year’s rent was paid to and received by the lessors, but the quarter’s rent accruing on May 1, and another accruing on August 1, .1881, were not paid, as had been provided for by the terms of the lease. And…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Beach v. . NixonNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Clark v. JonesCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
- Cornell v. Town of GuilfordCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
- Van Rensselaer v. . JewettNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
- Kenege v. ElliottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Kelly v. VarnesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Palmer & Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Barney Estate Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- MacGlashan v. MarvinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1918
- Estelle v. DinsbeerNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1894
- Ruth v. S. Z. B. Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1962
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.