Frackman v. Bijou Real Estate Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Frackman v. Bijou Real Estate Co.

142 N.Y.S. 1118, 1913 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6863

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 24, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 142 N.Y.S. 1118 (Frackman v. Bijou Real Estate Co.) 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

Frackman v. Bijou Real Estate Co., 142 N.Y.S. 1118, 1913 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

On March 7th the parties executed an informal lease for a store from March 10 to April 10, 1913, with certain privileges of renewal to the tenant in case the premises were not otherwise rented. The only question involved is whether, under the t4rms of the contract, the landlord was hound to give the tenant possession; it being conceded that ordinarily he is not under such obligation. See U. M. Realty Co. v. Roth, 193 N. Y. 576, 86 N. E. 544. I find nothing in the agreement to take the case out of the rule; on the contrary, there are a number of provisions in the paper signed which indicate that the parties actually contemplated delay after March 10th in obtaining possession. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

BIJUR, J.

On March 7th the parties executed an informal lease for a store from March 10 to April 10, 1913, with certain privileges of renewal to the tenant in case the premises were not otherwise rented. The only question involved is whether, under the t4rms of the contract, the landlord was hound to give the tenant possession; it being conceded that ordinarily he is not under such obligation. See U. M. Realty Co. v. Roth, 193 N. Y. 576, 86 N. E. 544. I find nothing in the agreement to take the case out of the rule; on the contrary, there are a number of provisions in the paper signed which indicate that the parties actually contemplated delay after March 10th in obtaining possession. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 N.Y.S. 1118, 1913 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frackman-v-bijou-real-estate-co-nyappterm-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack