Case Name: Walter L. Kane et al., App'lts, v. Martin Dahlbender et al., Resp'ts
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-08-01
Citations: 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 106
Docket Number: 
Parties: Walter L. Kane et al., App’lts, v. Martin Dahlbender et al., Resp'ts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 61
Pages: 106–106

Head Matter:
Walter L. Kane et al., App’lts, v. Martin Dahlbender et al., Resp'ts.
(New York Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed August 1, 1894.)
POWEB OF ATTORNEY—CONSTRUCTION.
The power of attorney, in this case, was so construed as to be subject to no limitation as to personal direction from the landlord, in respect to power of leasing and taking proceedings to dispossess tenants.
Appeal from an order entered in the district court in the city of New York for the second judicial district.
Tracy & Lane, for app’lts; J. J. Walsh, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
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 hy- a semi-colon. Then is delegated the power to "let the same from year to year or for a term of years not exceeding 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 semi-colon, 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.