9 Cow. 88 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1828
There is no question arising upon the pleadings. The declaration charges, in the usual form, that after the making of the lease, all the estate, interest and claim of the lessee, by assignment, came to and vested in the defendant. This fact is denied in the plea, and issue is taken upon it; and whether the evidence supports this allegation, is the only question.
Where the action is brought against the defendant, as assignee of a term, and the issue is on the assignment, it will be enough for the plaintiff to give .general evidence, from which an assignment may be inferred, as that the defendant *is in possession, or has paid rent.
The evidence in this case is sufficient to warrant the inference of an assignment. Both the defendants below and the lessee declared that the defendant below had purchased, and the waggon was delivered as the consideration of the purchase. This was attempted to be rebutted by the actual assignment from Loop to Livingston. The evidence on that subject affords the presumption, that the assignment was the consummation of a contract of sale between the defendant and Livingston. He (Livingston)
In my judgment, therefore, the court below erred, and their judgment should be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Van Ranseller ex’rs v. Gallup, 5 Denio, 454, 462.
3 Phil. Ev. 3d ed. 150, 151. 12 Wen. 556. 2 id. 487.
As to the pleadings, see farther, 3 Denio, 135.