Case ID: ad_238/html/0118-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Finch, P. J. (dissenting).", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ormond Realty Company, a Domestic Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Consolidated Trimming Corporation, a Domestic Corporation, Defendant.
    First Department,
    April 7, 1933.
    
      Irving Gordon [Harold E. Knee with him on the brief], for the plaintiff.
    
      Isidor E. Schlesinger of counsel [Samuel R. Gerstein, attorney], for the defendant.
   Per Curiam.

The submission is incomplete. The letter, Exhibit C,” is ambiguous and its true meaning is not stipulated. There is also no stipulation that the letter was the cause of the subtenants’ refusal to pay rent. Only by inference could such facts be found. The court may not draw inferences of fact from the facts within the stipulated case. (Dreiser v. Lane Co., 183 App. Div. 773.)

The submission should be dismissed.

McAvoy, Martin, O'Malley and Townley, JJ., concur; Finch, P. J., dissents.

Finch, P. J. (dissenting).

It seems to me that the question submitted is clear, namely, whether, upon the facts as submitted, there is any undue interference with the possession of the defendant.

It may be assumed that the letter sent caused the tenants to refuse to pay rent to the defendant. But it gave them no legal rights in the matter. It did not prevent the defendant from proceeding to collect. That the letter in itself was not an undue interference seems clear under the authorities.

Submission dismissed.