1 A.D. 502, Valentine v. Healey

• Docket Number: .
• Date: Invalid date
• Citation: 1 A.D. 502
• Parties: HENRY C. VALENTINE, Respondent, v. WARREN M. HEALEY and JOHN H. ZABRISKIE, Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division. First Department

Page 502

1 A.D. 502

HENRY C. VALENTINE, Respondent,

v.

WARREN M. HEALEY and JOHN H. ZABRISKIE, Appellants.

Supreme Court of New York, First Department.

February Term, 1896

Page 503

APPEAL by the defendants, Warren M. Healey and another, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court after a trial at the New York Circuit, and also from an order denying the defendants' motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

The action was brought to recover rent under a lease. The real property leased was owned by plaintiff and the defendant Healey as tenants in common. May 30, 1891, these owners joined in a lease of the property to the defendants, who were co-partners, and one of whom, Healey, was a part owner of the property. The lease was for one year from the 1st day of May, 1891, at the yearly rent of $8,500, payable quarterly, three-fourths to the plaintiff and one-fourth to the defendant Healey, with the privilege to the lessees of a further term of two years at $7,000 a year, on their giving

Page 504

notice in writing to each of the lessors, and signing and executing agreements with such lessors on or before February 1, 1892. The lessees covenanted to pay the rent to plaintiff and the defendant Healey, and the assigns of each, and at the expiration of the term to quit and surrender the possession of the property. The lease contained other provisions usually found in leases, which do not appear to be important here.

The complaint alleged and the answer admitted that the defendants went into possession of the property under the lease May 30, 1891, and remained in possession pursuant to such agreement until May 1, 1892, and that they continued and remained in possession of the property after the expiration of the term of one year. The plaintiff proved that the defendants occupied the property for the purpose of the manufacture and repair of carriages, and that their occupancy was substantially the same after as before May 1, 1892.

The defendants moved to amend their answer by striking out the admission that they went into possession under the lease, and by inserting an allegation putting that fact in issue. The evidence showed that they were in possession before the lease was made. This motion was denied and the defendants excepted.

The defendants proved and offered in evidence two letters constituting the correspondence between the defendant Healey and his firm, bearing date April 29, 1892, wherein the firm notified Healey that they had not exercised the option to renew the lease for two years, and would not renew the lease, but would like to continue occupying the property a few weeks after the expiration of the term of one year, paying a pro rata rent for such use and occupation. Healey replied that they were at liberty to occupy the property at a pro rata rent for the period of such occupancy, and that this privilege was accorded to...