Cleary v. Heyward

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Cleary v. Heyward

123 N.Y.S. 334

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 24, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 123 N.Y.S. 334 (Cleary v. Heyward) 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

Cleary v. Heyward, 123 N.Y.S. 334 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

GUY, J.

This action was brought upon a lease under seal, made between “John Cleary, as agent, party of the first part,” and Millie Heyward, party of the second part. Nowhere in the lease does the name of the principal, if there be one, appear. The complaint was"dismissed by the trial court, “without prejudice to a new action,” upon the ground that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest, and that the proper party to sue upon the lease was the principal of the plaintiff.

The appellant relies mainly upon the rule set forth in Henricus v. Englert, 137 N. Y. 488, 33 N. E. 550:

“Where an instrument is under seal, no person can sue or be sued to enforce the covenants therein contained, except those who are named as parties in the instrument, and who signed and sealed the same.’’

The law upon this proposition has also been very ably stated by Mr. Justice McLaughlin in Spencer v. Huntington, 100 App. Div. 469, 91 N. Y. Supp. 561. It is controlling in this case.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

GUY, J.

This action was brought upon a lease under seal, made between “John Cleary, as agent, party of the first part,” and Millie Heyward, party of the second part. Nowhere in the lease does the name of the principal, if there be one, appear. The complaint was"dismissed by the trial court, “without prejudice to a new action,” upon the ground that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest, and that the proper party to sue upon the lease was the principal of the plaintiff.

The appellant relies mainly upon the rule set forth in Henricus v. Englert, 137 N. Y. 488, 33 N. E. 550:

“Where an instrument is under seal, no person can sue or be sued to enforce the covenants therein contained, except those who are named as parties in the instrument, and who signed and sealed the same.’’

The law upon this proposition has also been very ably stated by Mr. Justice McLaughlin in Spencer v. Huntington, 100 App. Div. 469, 91 N. Y. Supp. 561. It is controlling in this case.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 N.Y.S. 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleary-v-heyward-nyappterm-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack