Case Name: Smith v. Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-02-11
Citations: 13 N.Y.S. 449
Docket Number: 
Parties: Smith v. Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 13
Pages: 449–451

Head Matter:
Smith v. Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
February 11, 1891.)
Abatement—Another Action Pending.
In an action for rent the complaint alleged that it accrued during the years 1887 to 1890 under a lease of mining land, executed in 1883, which provided that the lessee should pay certain royalties on the ore, quarter-yearly, and, if such royalties should fall short of 81,000 in any one year, the lessee should pay such an additional sum as would make the rent amount to 81,000. The answer alleged that in 1885 the lessors sued defendant for money due under the lease, and recovered a judgment, which was still pending on appeal. Held, that the pendency of such former action was not a bar to the second action.
Appeal from special term, Kings county.
Action by William E. Smith against the Lehigh Zinc & Iron Company» Plaintiff’s demurrer to the answer was overruled and plaintiff appeals.
Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.
L. A. Fuller, for appellant. Alexander & Green, for respondent.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
The defense pleaded in the fourth subdivision of the answer is not good. On the 2d of May, 1883, Charles Bamford and Edwin Bamford leased certain mining property to the defendant. The lease was to run 10 years. The rent was to be controlled in amount by royalties on the ore removed from or used on the premises. These royalties were to be ascertained for and paid quarter-yearly. It was provided that if the royalties fell below $1,000 iu any one year the defendant was to pay a sum in addition to the royalties which should make the royalty amount to the sum of $1,000. During the years ending May 2, 1887,1888,1889, and 1890 the defendants did not use ores to such an amount that the royalties amounted to $1,000, and in each of these years the defendant has paid nothing, either for royalty or for deficiency up to the $1,000. The plaintiff is the assignee of the Bamfords, and seeks to recover the $4,000 due upon the lease. The defendant, by the fourth defense, avers that the Bamfords commenced an action in the United States circuit court on the 5th of June, 1885, and recovered a judgment for $3,201.58, (33 Fed. Bep. 677,) which is still pending on appeal, and, until reversed, is a bar to the present claim. It is no bar whatever. The rent reserved was not due when that action was commenced, and if it is reversed it will result in two actions pending for installments of rent maturing at different times, and when the last installments sued for were not due when the former action, was brought. To make a judgment a bar it must apparently appear by the pleading that the judgment was conclusive in the cause of action. Bell v. Merrifield,109 N. Y. 202, 16 N. E. Rep. 55. Judgment reversed, and demurfer.. sustained, with costs to plaintiff on special and general term.