Schmitt v. . Stoss

Decided February 14, 1913

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1913-02-14

Motion to substitute Wilhelmina Sarbin and Albert H. Schmitt, heirs at law of Ignatz Schmitt, deceased, as parties respondent in his place and stead, in an action to compel specific performance of an alleged covenant to renew a lease.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1913-02-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 1973

2 federal appellate · 6 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 →

Per Curiam.

¶1 The personal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and not his heirs at law should be substituted. Leases for years are deemed assets and go to the personal representatives for distribution as a part of the personal estate of the deceased. (Code Civ. Pro. § 2712.) They are expressly excepted from the term “real property ” as defined by section 80 of the Decedent Estate Law. The context and reference to section 27, 1 R. S. 754, pt. 2, ch. 2, from which the section was derived, removes whatever doubt the punctuation might create on that point.

¶2 The motion is denied, with ten dollars costs.

¶3 Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Willard Bartlett, Chase, Cuddebaok, Hogan and Miller, JJ., concur.

¶4 Motion denied.