Case Name: Walter L. Kane et al., Appellants, v. Martin Dahlbender et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-08
Citations: 9 Misc. 473
Docket Number: 
Parties: Walter L. Kane et al., Appellants, v. Martin Dahlbender et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 473–474

Head Matter:
Walter L. Kane et al., Appellants, v. Martin Dahlbender et al., Respondents.
(New York Common Pleas — Additional General Term,
August, 1894.)
Under a power of attorney to take the care and management of real estate as the landlord might from time to time by letter direct, to let the same from year to year or for a term of years, not exceeding five, as he, the attorney, shall judge for the landlord’s interest, and to take proceedings to dispossess a tenant in case of nonpayment of rent or if he hold over, the attorney has power to rent the premises without a special direction.
Appeal from an order entered in the District Court in the ■city of New York for the second judicial district.
Tracy & Lane, for appellants.
J. J. Walsh, for respondents.

Opinion:
Per Guriam.
We think the court erred in excluding the power of attorney offered in evidence by the landlords, and in its construction of that instrument. The instrument plainly delegates several distinct powers to Mr. Ely, the attorney. The first is to take the care and management of the real estate belonging to the landlords as they might " from time to time by letter direct." This power is separated from that which follows by a semi-colon. Then is delegated the power to " let the same from year to year or for a term of years, not exceed ing five, as he, the attorney, shall judge for our interest." This power has no limit as to personal direction from the landlords. Then follows a third power, also separated by a semicolon, which provides that " in case of nonpayment of rent or the tenant shall hold over," to take proceedings to dispossess him. It might as well be claimed that the attorney could not take proceedings to dispossess tenants unless authorized to do so by a letter, as to contend that he could not rent premises without such special direction, which clearly is not intended by the power.
The judgment or final order should, therefore, be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
Present: Booicstaver and Bischoff, JJ.
Final order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.