Case ID: misc_9/html/0710-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Walter S. Davies, Respondent, v. Frederick W. Kalbfleisch, Appellant.
    Appeal from judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and from order denying motion for a new trial.
    Action for rent upon an express verbal renewal of a lease for a year from May 1, 1892. Defense, that the hiring was by the month. Defendant vacated the premises about December 6, 1892, and plaintiff was unable to let them until March 1, 1893. The action was brought to recover the rent for the months of October, November and December, 1892, and January and February, 1893, at fifty dollars per month. The verdict in plaintiff’s favor was for $150.
    
      Edward V. B. Kissam, for appellant.
    
      W. Rappelyea Davies, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The exceptions were taken in general language. Counsel, if he claimed that there could be no recovery for use and occupation under the pleadings, should have specifically stated the ground of his objection. Niebuhr v. Schreyer, 135 N. Y. 614.

The judgment and order denying new trial shpuld be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Clement, Ch. J., and Van Wyck, J.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs.