From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Milton M. Senz, Inc. v. Hammer

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 20, 1934
193 N.E. 168 (N.Y. 1934)

Opinion

Argued October 9, 1934

Decided November 20, 1934

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

M. Edward Kelly for appellants. Samuel R. Wachtell for respondent.



The provisions of the lease are not free from obscurity but the inference must fairly be drawn that the parties contemplated the deposit as security for the performance of all the covenants and that the landlord's agreement to repay it after the expiration of the lease was conditioned upon the tenant's full performance. The tenant's default renders applicable the rule announced in International Publications, Inc., v. Matchabelli ( 260 N.Y. 451) and Hand v. Rifkin ( 263 N.Y. 416).

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

POUND, Ch. J., CRANE, LEHMAN, O'BRIEN, HUBBS, CROUCH and LOUGHRAN, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.


Summaries of

Milton M. Senz, Inc. v. Hammer

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 20, 1934
193 N.E. 168 (N.Y. 1934)
Case details for

Milton M. Senz, Inc. v. Hammer

Case Details

Full title:MILTON M. SENZ, INC., Respondent, v. GRACE E. HAMMER et al., Appellants

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 20, 1934

Citations

193 N.E. 168 (N.Y. 1934)
193 N.E. 168

Citing Cases

Rose Container Corp. v. Lieberman

The Court of Appeals seems not to have directly considered the point in issue. In Senz, Inc. v. Hammer ( 265…

Harlington Realty Co. v. Lawrence Plumbing Supply Inc.

Defendants do not point to any provision in the lease or limited lease guaranty that expressly permitted…