Despard v. Walbridge
New York Court of Appeals
This action was brought to recover for the use and occupation of a store, in Buffalo, by the defendant, from May 1st, 1851, to August 1st, 1851, which the complaint averred to be worth $375. It also averred that the defendant on May 1st, 1851, agreed to pay for such use and occupation $1500 per annum, payable quarterly.
Read the full summary
This action was brought to recover for the use and occupation of a store, in Buffalo, by the defendant, from May 1st, 1851, to August 1st, 1851, which the complaint averred to be worth $375. It also averred that the defendant on May 1st, 1851, agreed to pay for such use and occupation $1500 per annum, payable quarterly. The action was tried before a referee, who found the following facts: On the 8th of March, 1850, one Sherwood .demised to H. B. Ritchie the store above mentioned, and another adjoining, for two years from the first of May then next, with a right of renewal on certain…
1Opinion of the CourtSelden, J.
It is insisted that the referee was wrong in overruling the motion for a nonsuit, for the reason that no privity of contract between the parties was shown, but- a *376privity of estate only. Had the defendant gone into possession as a trespasser, this position'might be correct. But he was in as a sub-tenant under the Sherwood lease. The plainuiff, being the owner of the residue of the term created by that lease (as for the purposes of this question we must assume), gives notice of his rights to the defendant, and states the terms on which the expired lease of the latter may be renewed. Here is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jackson ex dem. Russell v. RowlandNew York Supreme Court · 1831
3Cited by1 opinion
- State ex rel. Oddle v. ShermanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868