Realty Transfer Co. v. Kimball

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Realty Transfer Co. v. Kimball

66 Misc. 185, 121 N.Y.S. 279

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 66 Misc. 185 (Realty Transfer Co. v. Kimball) 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

Realty Transfer Co. v. Kimball, 66 Misc. 185, 121 N.Y.S. 279 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Bijur, J.

The action was for the recovery of fifty dollars, being one month’s rent, for the month of May, due on the first of May, under a written lease entered into between plaintiff and defendant. Apart from any question as to the weight of evidence, the testimony of defendant was that he had paid the rent due May first to plaintiff’s agent on the twenty-eighth day of April; and there is no proof or attempt to prove that plaintiff ratified this premature payment or actually received the money from the agent. Authority to an agent to receive payment of an indebtedness does not confer upon him the power to receive payment before maturity. Smith v. Kidd, 68 N. Y. 130, 141.

[186]*186The judgment should he reversed and new trial ordered, 'with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Seabury and Lehman, JJ., concur.

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

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

Bijur, J.

The action was for the recovery of fifty dollars, being one month’s rent, for the month of May, due on the first of May, under a written lease entered into between plaintiff and defendant. Apart from any question as to the weight of evidence, the testimony of defendant was that he had paid the rent due May first to plaintiff’s agent on the twenty-eighth day of April; and there is no proof or attempt to prove that plaintiff ratified this premature payment or actually received the money from the agent. Authority to an agent to receive payment of an indebtedness does not confer upon him the power to receive payment before maturity. Smith v. Kidd, 68 N. Y. 130, 141.

[186]*186The judgment should he reversed and new trial ordered, 'with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Seabury and Lehman, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 Misc. 185, 121 N.Y.S. 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/realty-transfer-co-v-kimball-nyappterm-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack