Chamberlain v. Iba

• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BARTLETT
• Citation: Chamberlain v. IBA, 181 N.Y. 486, 74 N.E. 481 (N.Y. 1905)
• Decision Date: 30 May 1905
• Parties: EMILY CHAMBERLAIN, Respondent, v. CASPAR IBA, Appellant.

181 N.Y. 486

74 N.E. 481

CHAMBERLAIN

v.IBA.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 30, 1905.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Action by Emily Chamberlain against Caspar Iba. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (84 N. Y. Supp. 1120,87 App. Div. 632) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

S. Livingston Samuels, for appellant.

Gibson Putzel and Benjamin G. Paskus, for respondent.

BARTLETT, J.

This action was brought to recover unpaid rent of certain premises occupied by the defendant under a long written lease. On the 25th day of March, 1889, two sisters, Sophie E. Beach and Emily Beach, executed and delivered to the defendant a lease of the premises 251, 253, and 255 Bowery, corner of Stanton street, in the city of New York, for the term of 15 years, commencing on the 1st day of May, 1889, and ending on the 1st day of May, 1904. The rental of these premises was $6,000 a year, and the defendant covenanted to take down the building known as 255 Bowery, and erect another in its place, of a certain description, to cost not less than $12,000. It was also provided that as security for the rent the lessee was to place with trustees the sum of $10,000, to be invested in good securities. The new building was duly and properly erected, and the deposit to secure the rent was made, and remained in the hands of the trustees at the time of the trial of this action. A single issue was presented to the jury under the pleadings. The lessee, as matter of defense, set up an oral agreement between himself and the lessors made some time in September or October, 1889, shortly after the execution of the written lease, to the effect that he should erect at his own expense a certain factory on a portion of the demised premises opening on Stanton street, and should be allowed as compensation therefor its value as against the rents to accrue under the lease for the last two years of the term beginning May 1, 1902; that he afterwards erected said factory; and that its actual cost was $4,500, which he claimed as a payment against that portion of the rent sued for from May to September, 1902, inclusive, amounting to $2,500.

This action was begun in September, 1902, and tried in January, 1903. Sophie E. Beach died February 22, 1902, several months before the commencement of this action. The plaintiff, under the will of her sister, thereupon became the sole owner of the demised premises. Since the execution of the lease in 1889, Emily Beach intermarried with Edward W. Chamberlain. It appears that Sophie E. Beach was the elder of the two sisters, and apparently conducted the business matters relating to the premises in question, as the letters involved were written by her. On the trial the defendant testified that he built the factory about September or October, 1889, and that before doing so he had a conversation with the lessors in regard to its erection; that he first saw Sophie E. Beach, and afterwards he had an interview with both of the lessors on the demised premises. The defendant also swore two witnesses, who were in his employ at the time of this alleged oral agreement, who testified that they were present, and overheard the oral agreement entered into substantially as testified to by the defendant and set up in his answer. The plaintiff testified that no such agreement as sworn to by the defendant and his witnesses was made; that she had never been upon the premises since the execution of the lease, and had no interview with the defendant in the presence of her sister. She further testified that her sister had told her that the factory was erected by the defendant without any permission, and that she never knew of the fact until long after, when, being notified in some insurance matter, she went down to the premises, and became aware for the first time of the fact that a new factory had been erected on the site of the former building. This single issue was submitted to the jury, and a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount of rent alleged to be due under the lease. The defendant seeks to reverse the judgment for the reason that four certain letters written to him by Sophie E. Beach, material to the issue tried, were rejected by the trial judge when offered in evidence; also that after plaintiff had introduced a certain letter written by the defendant to her or her agent, containing an alleged admission by this defendant against himself, he was refused the opportunity to explain. The letters in question are all without date. The first reads in part as follows: ‘I send you as requested the following statement: Taxes for the year 1889, without discount, which if paid in advance you have the benefit, $843.60. * * * I would advise you to have a licensed plumber and look into the water meter business, for you see what I have just paid is exorbitant, and I know, not correct; they say because the meter is not registering. You can build where the frame part is now in your shop, but not to extend it any more than it now stands.’ While this letter is undated, it is very apparent that it was written in the year 1889, before the taxes were paid, or the period in which t...