McMann v. Bloomer

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

McMann v. Bloomer

107 N.Y.S. 882

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 20, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 107 N.Y.S. 882 (McMann v. Bloomer) 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

McMann v. Bloomer, 107 N.Y.S. 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

If there had been a disputed question of fact here, and it had been determined in favor of the tenant, we should not be inclined to disturb the judgment; but there is no dispute about the facts. The defendant himself swears:

“Q. Where were the things, in the apartment you occupied? A. Yes, sir; a few pieces of furniture. Q. How long were they there after the 1st? A. About four or five days; about 12 pieces of furniture,” etc.

It is true that he swears that he had the permission to leave them from the janitor; but to make such permission available to the defendant the authority to grant same should have been shown, and the record is silent thereon. We cannot see, therefore, but that under the law, which without dispute must be accepted as settled, there was a holding over beyond May 1st, and that the defendant was answerable for that month’s rental, but, under the circumstances, for that month only. The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

If there had been a disputed question of fact here, and it had been determined in favor of the tenant, we should not be inclined to disturb the judgment; but there is no dispute about the facts. The defendant himself swears:

“Q. Where were the things, in the apartment you occupied? A. Yes, sir; a few pieces of furniture. Q. How long were they there after the 1st? A. About four or five days; about 12 pieces of furniture,” etc.

It is true that he swears that he had the permission to leave them from the janitor; but to make such permission available to the defendant the authority to grant same should have been shown, and the record is silent thereon. We cannot see, therefore, but that under the law, which without dispute must be accepted as settled, there was a holding over beyond May 1st, and that the defendant was answerable for that month’s rental, but, under the circumstances, for that month only. The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 N.Y.S. 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmann-v-bloomer-nyappterm-1907.