Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintifftriallease
plaintiffdefendantappealtriallease

Related Cases

Steefel v. Rothschild, 17 Bedell 273, 179 N.Y. 273, 72 N.E. 112
View Case »
Becar v. Flues, 19 Sickels 518, 64 N.Y. 518, 1876 WL 363
View Case »
Beaver v. Beaver, 72 Sickels 421, 117 N.Y. 421, 22 N.E. 940
View Case »
Purity Extract & Tonic Co. v. Lynch, 226 U.S. 192, 33 S.Ct. 44, 57 L.Ed. 184
View Case »
Homes Development Co. v. Simmons, 75 S.D. 575, 70 N.W.2d 527
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Mann v. Ferdinand Munch Brewery, nan

Facts

Max Mann leased a property to Sarah Fish, who later assigned the lease to Ferdinand Munch Brewery. The brewery paid rent until August 1913, after which it was dispossessed and did not pay rent from September 1913 to April 1914. The case centers on whether the brewery, as the assignee, was liable for the rent during the period it was out of possession.

The leased property was a corner store and basement used as a saloon. Sarah Fish remained in the property until November, 1910, when the defendant, Ferdinand Munch Brewery, took possession and held it until dispossessed in August of 1913.

Issue

The main legal issue is whether the Ferdinand Munch Brewery, as an assignee of the lease, is liable for rent due after it was dispossessed from the leased premises.

The one question submitted to the jury is now immaterial as it only related to the lessor's authorization by the defendant to rent the premises in order to reduce the damage.

Rule

The court applied the principle that an assignee can be held liable for rent under a lease if they have assumed the obligations of the lease, even if they are out of possession, provided there is sufficient evidence of assignment and assumption.

Upon the first point there was ample evidence to establish the conclusion of the trial judge that the brewery was in possession as assignee.

Analysis

The court found that there was ample evidence to establish that the brewery was an assignee of the lease and had assumed the covenants contained therein. The brewery's continued payment of rent and written communications indicated an acknowledgment of its obligations under the lease. The court emphasized that the lease's covenants survived the dispossession, and the brewery's assumption of the lease included the obligation to pay rent.

To aid the plaintiff there was evidence of an assignment other than this presumption of law.

Conclusion

The court reversed the Appellate Division's order and affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the brewery was liable for the rent due under the lease.

The order of the Appellate Division must be reversed and the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Who won?

The plaintiff, Max Mann, prevailed in the case because the court found sufficient evidence that the Ferdinand Munch Brewery was liable for the rent due under the lease despite being out of possession.

The Appellate Division having reversed the judgment, the plaintiff comes to this court under a stipulation for judgment absolute in case this appeal is decided against her.

You must be