Legal Opinion
Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Hellinger
New York Court of Appeals
Decided July 8, 1936PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Per curiam
We do not reach the question of what defendant’s obligations, if any, would have been had there been a mere technical surrender of the master lease and nothing more. The terms of the agreement of September 13, 1930, clearly and as matter of law disclose an intent that the subleases were to be kept alive and that the owner should stand in the shoes of the defendant’s immediate lessor. In effect there was an assignment of the subleases. Any narrower interpretation would be inequitable. Under such circumstances the doctrine of merger is inapplicable. (Beal v. Boston Car Spring Co., 125 Mass.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Appleton v. AmesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Beal v. Boston Car Spring Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
3Cited by9 opinions
- 48th Street Steakhouse, Inc. v. Rockefeller Group, Inc. (In re 48th Street Steakhouse, Inc.)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- Mutual Drug Co. v. SewallSupreme Court of Missouri · 1944
- Precision Dynamics Corp. v. Retailers Representatives, Inc.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1983
- Lippe v. Professional Surgical Supply Co.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1986
- Futterman v. South African AirwaysNew York Supreme Court · 1984
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.