Case ID: nys_42/html/0349-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STERRIT v. FLANNERY.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    December 8, 1896.)
    Landlord and Tenant—-Action for Rent.
    The owner ot leased premises is entitled to the rent, though the lease was under seal, and was executed in the name of the-owner’s agent as lessor; and therefore a receiver of such nominal lessor cannot recover the rent reserved on the ground that an action on a sealed' instrument may be brought only by and against the parties named in it
    Appeal from Orange county court.
    
      The question involved in this action is not whether any person other than the lessor can maintain an action upon the lease, but it is whether the rent reserved by the lease belonged to the lessor, or to the owner of the premises, for whom he acted as agent. It cannot be disputed that, if the lessor had collected the. rent, an action in favor of the principal could have been maintained against him to recover it. This being so, and all the parties to the transaction having conceded the right of the plaintiff to the rent, she cannot be deprived of it by á stranger to the transaction, under a technical rule of pleading which requires an action to be brought upon a sealed instrument by and against the parties named in it. Judgment for the defendant, with costs.
    Action by Louis S. Sterrit, as receiver in supplementary proceedings of W. H. Vance, a judgment debtor, against Frank Flannery, to recover the rent of a farm, which said judgment debtor had leased to defendant by a writing under seal, in which he described himself as lessor, though the farm belonged to Hannah A. Vance, his wife. Before the action was brought, defendant paid the rent sued for to said Hannah A. Vance. Plaintiff obtained a judgment in the justice’s court for the rent sued for. The justice’s judgment was reversed by the county court, and plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The opinion of County Judge BEATTIE is as follows:
    Argued before BROWN, P. J., and CULLEN, BARTLETT, HATCH, and BRADLEY, JJ.
    John Miller, for appellant.
    A. H. F. Seeger, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of the county judge.