Sherry v. . Proal

Decided November 19, 1912

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1912-11-19

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 5, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover. rent alleged to be due under a lease.</p>

Relies on Sanders v. Pottlitzer Bros. Fruit Co. · Pratt v. . Hudson River Railroad Company · Brauer v. . Oceanic Steam Navigation Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1912-11-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1978

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cullen, Ch. J.

¶1 We think the evidence in behalf of the plaintiff presented a question of fact for determination by the jury. If the minds of the parties met upon *727 all the terms and conditions of the proposed hiring, and the plaintiff’s manager agreed to let the premises to the defendant for the term of one year, and the defendant agreed to hire the premises for said term, then there was a valid and binding lease, even though the parties expected to thereafter embody the agreement in a written instrument. (Pratt v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 21 N. Y. 305; Sanders v. Pottlitzer Bros. Fruit Co., 144 N. Y. 209; Brauer v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co., 178 N. Y. 339.)

¶2 The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide event.

Vann, Willard Bartlett and Hiscock, JJ., concur; Haight and Werner, JJ., dissent; Gray, J., absent.

¶3 Judgment reversed, etc.