Case Name: WOODBRIDGE CO. v. CHARLES E. HIRES CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1897-06-11
Citations: 45 N.Y.S. 991
Docket Number: 
Parties: WOODBRIDGE CO. v. CHARLES E. HIRES CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 45
Pages: 991–993

Head Matter:
WOODBRIDGE CO. v. CHARLES E. HIRES CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
June 11, 1897.)
Leases—Construction—Termination of Tenancy.
A provision in a lease that the lessee may cancel it “at and from the first day of September, 1895, by giving thirty days’ written notice to the” lessor, fixes the day mentioned as the point of time from which the lease may be canceled.
O’Brien, J., dissenting.
Appeal from trial term, Hew York county.
Action by the Woodbridge Company against the Charles E. Hires Company for rent. The complaint was dismissed, and plaintiff appeals.
Beversed.
Argued before VAH BRUNT, P. J., and WILLIAMS, PATTER- ° SOH, O’BRIEH, and INGRAHAM, JJ.
E. Au Sheldon, for appellant.
John A. Garver, for respondent.

Opinion:
PATTERSOH, J.
The determination of the question arising upon this appeal depends upon the proper construction to be given to that clause in the lease which provides as follows: "It is further understood and agreed that the party of the second part [the lessee] has the privilege of canceling this lease without damage at and from the first day of September, 1895, by giving thirty days' written notice to the party of the first part." The meaning of this clause seems to be entirely clear and unmistakable. All the terms and conditions upon which the property was rented by the plaintiff's assignor to the defendant are contained in the lease, and construction can be given to every clause of that instrument without resort being had to extraneous evidence. The words "at and from" simply fix a point of time at which and from which the lease may be terminated; and it may be thus terminated upon the lessee giving 30 days' written notice to the lessor. The evidence is distinct that the premises were not surrendered until October 1, 1895; the notice was not given until August 21, 1895; and therefore the condition of the lease upon which the defendant was entitled to surrender the premises, and cease to be liable for the rent, was not complied with.
Judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
VAN BRUNT, P. J., and WILLIAMS and INGRAHAM, JJ., concur.