Mahan v. Sewell

New York Court of Common Pleas

Mahan v. Sewell

6 N.Y.S. 662, 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 930, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 732

DecidedJuly 22, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 6 N.Y.S. 662 (Mahan v. Sewell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mahan v. Sewell, 6 N.Y.S. 662, 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 930, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 732 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The counsel for the appellant seems to have honestly believed that, if a tenant pays part of the rent, he cannot be dispossessed for the non-payment of "the remainder. In this case the tenant agreed to pay part in board furnished to the landlord and his daughter and part in cash. The board he furnished, but he failed to pay the money, and summary proceedings to remove him were then taken. The argument of the tenant’s counsel is that, as a forfeiture for a breach of a condition of the lease is waived by the acceptance of rent with knowledge that the condition has been broken, the landlord waived his right to recover possession of the demised premises by taking part payment of the rent. Of course, no refutation of such a proposition is needed. The final order should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The counsel for the appellant seems to have honestly believed that, if a tenant pays part of the rent, he cannot be dispossessed for the non-payment of "the remainder. In this case the tenant agreed to pay part in board furnished to the landlord and his daughter and part in cash. The board he furnished, but he failed to pay the money, and summary proceedings to remove him were then taken. The argument of the tenant’s counsel is that, as a forfeiture for a breach of a condition of the lease is waived by the acceptance of rent with knowledge that the condition has been broken, the landlord waived his right to recover possession of the demised premises by taking part payment of the rent. Of course, no refutation of such a proposition is needed. The final order should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 N.Y.S. 662, 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 930, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahan-v-sewell-nyctcompl-1889.