Wagner v. Van Schaick Realty Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. 220 West 42 Assoc. v. Newmark Co.

    84 Misc. 2d 259 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1975)   Cited 7 times

    The lease contains a covenant of quiet enjoyment (par 22). It also contains a broad subordination clause (par 7). Plaintiff contends that the subordination clause clearly makes the lease subject to "all mortgages which may now or hereafter affect such leases" (Wagner v Van Schaick Realty Co., 163 App. Div. 632). That the covenant of quiet enjoyment is superseded by the subordination clause.

  2. Best v. Crown Drug Co.

    154 F.2d 736 (8th Cir. 1946)   Cited 3 times

    The general rule in Missouri and elsewhere is that an ordinary lease raises an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment of the leased premises as regards the lessor, one claiming under him, or one asserting title paramount to that of the lessor. Jackson v. Eddy, 12 Mo. 209; Geer v. Boston Little Circle Zinc Co., 126 Mo.App. 173, 103 S.W. 151; Stott v. Rutherford, 92 U.S. 107, 23 L.Ed. 486; Evans v. Williams, 291 Ky. 484, 165 S.W.2d 52. But it is equally well settled that such an implied covenant will not arise in the face of an express covenant of a more limited character. Maeder v. City of Carondelet, 26 Mo. 112; Burr v. Stenton, 43 N.Y. 462; Crouch v. Fowle, 9 N.H. 219, 32 Am.Dec. 350; Wagner v. Van Schaick Realty Co., 163 App. Div. 632, 148 N.Y.S. 736. The Maeder case, supra, involved an express stipulation that nothing contained in the lease should be construed as implying a covenant of quiet enjoyment. But the case neither holds nor implies that language as strong or specific as that used in the lease before the court in that case is necessary to negative an implied covenant.

  3. Ganz v. Clark

    252 N.Y. 92 (N.Y. 1929)   Cited 7 times

    In Thorley v. Pabst Brewing Co. (179 Fed. Rep. 338) the Circuit Court of Appeals thoroughly reviewed all the New York decisions relating to the measure of damage on the breach of a covenant for quiet enjoyment and held that among the exceptions to the ancient rule is the one calling for compensatory damages when there is fault or what amounts to a fault on the part of the lessor. The precedent upon which the judgment at bar is founded and upon which respondent to a large extent relies is Wagner v. Van Schaick Realty Co. ( 163 App. Div. 632). Even if full approval were to be extended to the reasoning of the opinion in that case, the facts are quite different. A very special situation was there present.