History
  • No items yet
midpage
Sherry v. . Proal
100 N.E. 1127
NY
1912
Check Treatment

We think the evidence in behalf of the plaintiff presented a question of fact for determination by the jury. If the minds of the parties met upon *Page 727 all the terms and conditions of the proposed hiring, and the plaintiff's manager agreed to let the premises to the defendant for the term of one year, and the defendant agreed to hire the premises for said term, then there was a valid and binding lease, even though the parties expected to thereafter embody the agreement in a written instrument. (Pratt v. Hudson River R.R.Co., 21 N.Y. 305; Sanders v. Pottlitzer Bros. Fruit Co.,144 N.Y. 209; Brauer v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co., 178 N.Y. 339. )

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide event.

VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT and HISCOCK, JJ., concur; HAIGHT and WERNER, JJ., dissent; GRAY, J., absent.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Case Details

Case Name: Sherry v. . Proal
Court Name: New York Court of Appeals
Date Published: Nov 19, 1912
Citation: 100 N.E. 1127
Court Abbreviation: NY
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.