Case Name: BEND et al. v. HOFFMAN HOUSE OF NEW YORK
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-03-05
Citations: 62 N.Y.S. 1081
Docket Number: 
Parties: BEND et al. v. HOFFMAN HOUSE OF NEW YORK.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 62
Pages: 1081–1084

Head Matter:
BEND et al. v. HOFFMAN HOUSE OF NEW YORK.
(Supreme Court. Appellate Term.
March 5, 1900.)
1. Landlord and Tenant—Agreement—Failure of Proof.
In an action on an agreement, made as part of the consideration for a lease, that the lessee should, pay the water rents, plaintiffs sought to show that such agreement was made with N., the lessor’s attorney, and alleged ownership of the claim. Defendant’s agent, when asked by plaintiffs’ attorney on the trial if he saw N., the agent of the owners, in regard to the lease, said that he did; but who the owners -were did not appear. Held, that there was a failure to prove plaintiffs’ ownership of the claim under the agreement, the lease having been executed by the lessor alone, as party of the first part.
2. Same.
In an action on a lease, the will of the former owner of the premises was introduced in evidence to show that he had devised the premises to plaintiffs. The will named certain persons as devisees, but there was-nothing to show that they were the persons named as plaintiffs. Held, that plaintiffs failed to prove any title to the claim sued on under the will.
MacLean, J., dissenting. "
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Sixth district.
Action by Elizabeth A. Bend and others against the Hoffman House of New7 York. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and MaeLEAN and LEVEN-TRITT, JJ.
Adams & Douras, for appellants.
Turner, McClure & Rolston, for respondent.

Opinion:
FREEDMAK, P. J.
The plaintiffs in this action appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant for costs, rendered after a trial of the issues by the court, without a jury. The action was brought to recover the sum of $239.96, being the amount assessed for Croton water rents upon certain premises for the years 1882 and 1886, leased to one Edward S. Stokes, which water rents Stokes, by the terms of such lease, had covenanted to pay. The plaintiffs' right to recover of the defendant herein rests upon the claim made by them that in 1894, at the time of the making and execution of a lease for the same premises between Isaac Townsend and Stokes, it was agreed by Stokes, as part of the consideration for the making of such lease by Townsend, that Stokes should pay all the back taxes for water rent assessed against the premises, and that Stokes at the time of making such agreement was a director of, and acting for, the defendant. The plaintiffs allege in their complaint that they are the heirs and next of kin of Mary E. Townsend, deceased, and are the sole remainder-men of said premises under the last will of Isaac Townsend, deceased, and are the owners of the claim .against the defendant. This was denied by the defendant in its answer. The proof given upon the trial by the plaintiffs fails to sustain those allegations. The plaintiffs sought to show that Stokes made the alleged agreement with one John McLean Nash, who it appears was the attorney for Isaac Townsend when the lease of 1894 was made. Stokes, who testified 'to the making of the agreement, was asked by the plaintiffs' attorney upon the trial if he saw Nash, the agent of the owners, in regard to the extension of the lease, and he said he did. Who those owners were, does not appear. That lease was executed by Isaac Townsend alone, as party of the first part. The will of Isaac Townsend, deceased, was offered in evidence, undoubtedly for the purpose of showing that the said deceased had devised the premises mentioned in the lease to these plaintiffs. The will names Isaac Townsend,-Jr., Amy G. Townsend, Elizabeth Townsend, Sarah Helen Townsend, and Mary Alice Townsend as legatees and devisees therein. There is nothing to show that they are the persons named as plaintiffs herein, nor is it alleged or proven that these plaintiffs derived their title to the claim sued upon, or .a right of action thereon, by assignment or otherwise, and it does not appear by the record that they are the real parties in interest. There being a failure of proof, the judgment of the trial court was correct, and must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
LEVENTBITT, J., concurring.