TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Smathers v. Standard Oil Company of New York

Elmer E. Smathers, Appellant, v. Standard Oil Company of New York, Respondent

Smathers v. Standard Oil Co. of N.Y., 135 N.E. 942 (N.Y. 1922)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 2, 1922
Citations
135 N.E. 942233 N.Y. 6171922 N.Y. LEXIS 1038
Headnotes
Landlord and tenant — lease — construction of provision of lease for payment of rent — when rent not payable in advance.
Summary
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 17, 1922, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a motion, by plaintiff, for judgment on the pleadings, and denied said motion. The action was to recover rent. The lease was for a term commencing March first, and provided that the rent should be payable in equal quarterly payments on the first day of the months of April, July, October and January in every year during the term, the first payment to be made upon the execution and delivery of the lease, of an amount proportionate to the time during which the tenant occupied the premises and received the rents up to the first of April in the year 1920, and the receipt of said rentals up to said first day of April, 1920, was acknowledged. After alleging that defendant entered into the possession of the premises under the terms of the lease and paid the rent up to the 1st of April, 1920, it is averred that on the 1st day of April, 1920, the plaintiff duly demanded of the defendant payment of the quarterly payment due on that date. The defendant’s answer substantially admitted the allegations of the complaint excepting the right of the plaintiff to demand payment of a quarterly rent on the 1st day of April, 1920, and affirmatively alleged that the rent was not due for the quarter commencing April 1, 1920, but would become due upon the expiration of that quarter. The following question was certified: “ Is the plaintiff in this case entitled to judgment on the pleadings? ”

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

*618 Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1938: 11956: 11958: 11975: 11985: 119382026peak 1938 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. 67 Wall Street Co. v. Franklin National Bank333 N.E.2d 184 (N.Y. 1975)
  2. Hanfeld v. A. Broido, Inc.167 Misc. 85 (1938)
  3. Bakas Restaurant, Inc. v. Charos111 A.D.2d 360 (1985)
  4. Avelino v. Fasano15 Misc. 2d 635 (1958) · Dissent
  5. Davidek v. Wyoming Investment Co.291 P.2d 1072 (Wyo. 1956)

Most recent

  1. Bakas Restaurant, Inc. v. Charos111 A.D.2d 360 (1985)
  2. 67 Wall Street Co. v. Franklin National Bank333 N.E.2d 184 (N.Y. 1975)
  3. Avelino v. Fasano15 Misc. 2d 635 (1958) · Dissent
  4. Davidek v. Wyoming Investment Co.291 P.2d 1072 (Wyo. 1956)
  5. Hanfeld v. A. Broido, Inc.167 Misc. 85 (1938)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list