From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Higgins v. Fox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 1922
202 App. Div. 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 1922)

Opinion

April, 1922.


Judgment and order of the City Court of New Rochelle reversed upon the law and the facts, with costs, and a new trial granted. It was incumbent upon defendant to examine the premises prior to the execution of the lease, and the responsibility of doing this rested upon him. ( Franklin v. Brown, 118 N.Y. 110, 115.) There was no express covenant or warranty contained in the lease, and under the circumstances defendant assumed the risk of the condition of the premises. ( Zerega v. Will, 34 App. Div. 488, 490.) Blackmar, P.J., Rich, Jaycox, Manning and Kelby, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Higgins v. Fox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 1922
202 App. Div. 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 1922)
Case details for

Higgins v. Fox

Case Details

Full title:AMES HIGGINS, Appellant, v. ROBERT FOX, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 1, 1922

Citations

202 App. Div. 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 1922)