Case Name: Corn v. Rosenthal
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-11
Citations: 1 Misc. 168
Docket Number: 
Parties: Corn v. Rosenthal.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 168–170

Head Matter:
Corn v. Rosenthal.
(New York Common Pleas—General Term,
November, 1892.)
Parol evidence is admissible to show that a duly executed lease of premises was not to become a binding contract until the performance of some condition precedent resting in parol.
In an action to recover rent which had accrued under an alleged lease, the defense being that the lease was executed and delivered upon condition that it was not to take effect unless possession of the premises thereby demised was delivered to defendant two weeks before the commencement of the term, defendant was permitted, under objection and exception to testify as to the condition, and when the evidence was closed defendant’s testimony remained unchallenged. Upon motion and under objection and exception, the court directed the jury to find for defendant. Held, that while the testimony objected to and admitted was competent for the purpose for which it was offered, the trial justice erred in withdrawing the case from the jury’s consideration, Defendant’s testimony was that of a party in interest, whose credibility should be determined by the jury, though it remained otherwise unimpeached.
Appeal from a judgment for defendant recovered in a District Court, and entered upon a verdict rendered by direction of the court.
Action to recover rent which had accrued under an alleged lease, the defense being that the lease was executed and delivered upon the express oral condition that it was not to take effect unless possession of the premises thereby demised was delivered to defendant two weeks before the commencement of the term, and that such delivery of possession was omitted.
Carlisle Norwood, for plaintiffs (appellants).
F. R. Minrath, for defendant (respondent).

Opinion:
Bischoff, J.
This action was brought to recover the first installment of rent which had accrued under an alleged lease in writing as follows:
"New York, December 18, 1891.
" It is hereby agreed between Samuel & Henry Chrn & Joseph Rosenthal that the said Samuel & Henry Cprn do lease unto the said Joseph Rosenthal the part of store and basement of 127 Greene street from February 1,1892, to February 1, 1893, at the annual rental of $1,000, payable monthly in advance, except such portion of the store which is now occupied by Hockmeyer Bros., which has nothing to do with said lease.
" (Signed) SAMUEL & HENRY CORN.
" JOSEPH ROSENTHAL."
On the trial, the defense, that the instrument purporting to be a lease was executed and delivered upon the express oral condition that it was not to take effect unless possession of the premises, thereby intended to be demised, was delivered to the lessee two weeks before the commencement of the term, which was not done, was sought to be established by the testimony of the defendant lessee. This testimony was admitted, under objection and exception, respecting its competency, by plaintiff's counsel, and when the introduction of evidence was concluded it remained substantially unchallenged. Thereupon, on motion of defendant's counsel, and again under objection and exception by plaintiff's counsel, the court directed the jury to find for defendant.
We are of the opinion that the testimony objected to and admitted was competent for the purpose for which it was offered, under the ruling of the Court of Appeals in Reynolds v. Robinson, 110 N. Y. 654, but that the trial justice erred in withdrawing the case from the jury's consideration. Defendant's testimony was that of a party in interest, Avhose credibility should be determined by the jury, though it remained otherwise unimpeached. Neal's testimony, by which defendant sought to be corroborated, falls short of liaxáng that effect. lie heard confessedly only part of Avliat defendant said iimnediately after the execution and delivery of the paper, so that it does not appear from his testimony that defendant's proposition Avas assented to by plaintiffs. Elwood v. Western U. Tel. Co., 45 N. Y. 549; Gildersleeve v. Landon, 73 id. 609; Honegyer v. Wettstein, 94 id. 252; Kavanagh v. Wilson, 70 id. 177; Canajoharie Natl. Bank v. Diefendorf, 123 id. 191, 200.
The judgment appealed from must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
Bookstavrr, J., concurs.
Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.