Case Name: Duffield and others v. Whitlock, 26 Wend. 55-62
Court: New York Court for the Correction of Errors
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1799
Citations: 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 309
Docket Number: 
Parties: Duffield and others v. Whitlock, 26 Wend. 55-62.
Judges: 
Reporter: Lockwood's Reversed Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 309–310

Head Matter:
Duffield and others v. Whitlock, 26 Wend. 55-62.
Reported 1 Hoffman Ch. R. 110. Not reported in Paige.
Lease ; Covenant for Appraisement and Renewal.
The lease in this case contained a covenant, that “ at the expiration of the term, the buildings should be appraised, and that the lessors should pay the tenant the appraised value, or grant a new lease for twenty years, upon such terms as he might think proper, and as might be approved by the lessee; and in case the lessee should not approve of the terms offered, that he should have the right to remove the buildings within three months after the expiration of the lease.” After the expiration of the term, the parties appointed appraisers by an instrument in writing and under seal, by which they agreed to stand to and abide and perform the appraisement to be made under and pursuant to the covenant in the lease. The appraisement being made, the lessor tendered a lease to the lessee, but at a rent • grossly disproportioned and exorbitant, which the lessee declined to accept, and filed his bill, alleging the lease tendered to have been collusively offered and not in good faith; and praying that the lessors might be decreed to pay the value of the buildings as appraised or to be appraised, and for a new lease, &c.

Opinion:
The Assistant Tice Chancellor of the first circuit, held, that though the complainant by the terms of the lease, was not entitled to demand a renewal, yet that by the submission to the appraisers, a new agreement had been entered into, and he decreed the sum found by the appraisers, to be paid to the lessee. On appeal,
The Chancellor held that there could be no decree for a new lease ; but he differed as to the effect of the submission, holding it to be no new agreement; but he also held that as the lessors had not tendered a lease according to the spirit of the covenant in the lease; the lessee was entitled to be paid the appraised value of the buildings; and he affirmed the Assistant Tice Chancellor's decree.
The Court of Errors held, on the other hand, that though the covenant for a new lease was too vague and indefinite to authorize a new lease; that the offer of a new lease, though at an exorbitant rent, released the lessor from all covenants in the lease, except to permit the removal of the buildings, and consequently that he was not liable to pay the appraised value. Decree reversed.
For reversal 13, for off. 5.