Cappel v. London

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Cappel v. London

61 Misc. 652, 114 N.Y.S. 97

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 15, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 61 Misc. 652 (Cappel v. London) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cappel v. London, 61 Misc. 652, 114 N.Y.S. 97 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon the hearing of this appeal our attention was not called to the fact, that the petition herein, in addition to setting forth that the petitioner was the agent of the plaintiff, who was the “ landlord ” of the demised premises, also contained the further allegation “ that the petitioner as the agent of such landlord on or about the first day of April entered into an agreement with Meyer London as tenant and that, by the terms of such agreement, the said tenant hired from the said landlord the premises,” etc. This must be held to be a sufficient statement of the “ interest ” of the petitioner to comply with the requirements of section 2235 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereby to confer jurisdiction upon the justice of the Municipal Court. Slater v. Waterson, 58 Misc. Rep. 215; 109 N. Y. Supp. 50; Royland v. Dillingham, 83 App. Div. 156. Our former order reversing the final' order herein most be vacated and said final order must be 'affirmed.

Present: Gildersleeve, MacLean and Seabury, JJ.

Final order affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Upon the hearing of this appeal our attention was not called to the fact, that the petition herein, in addition to setting forth that the petitioner was the agent of the plaintiff, who was the “ landlord ” of the demised premises, also contained the further allegation “ that the petitioner as the agent of such landlord on or about the first day of April entered into an agreement with Meyer London as tenant and that, by the terms of such agreement, the said tenant hired from the said landlord the premises,” etc. This must be held to be a sufficient statement of the “ interest ” of the petitioner to comply with the requirements of section 2235 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereby to confer jurisdiction upon the justice of the Municipal Court. Slater v. Waterson, 58 Misc. Rep. 215; 109 N. Y. Supp. 50; Royland v. Dillingham, 83 App. Div. 156. Our former order reversing the final' order herein most be vacated and said final order must be 'affirmed.

Present: Gildersleeve, MacLean and Seabury, JJ.

Final order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 Misc. 652, 114 N.Y.S. 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cappel-v-london-nyappterm-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack