132 N.Y. 128 | NY | 1892
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *130
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *131
The lunacy of Strasburger did not discharge or affect his covenants in the leases to the appellants. (Matter of Otis,
It is urged that his committee ought to have paid the rent, and thus have protected the lunatic's covenants. But why should the committee pay it? The estate was insolvent, and it does not appear that it was for its interest to make the payment. It might be better for the estate to incur whatever damages might result from the breach of the covenants than to expend the money necessary to protect them. The appellants could themselves have protected their possession by paying the superior landlord the rent due him. (Peck v. Ingersoll,
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.