Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
James Bowman, Respondent, v. Attila J. Keleman, Appellant, 1875 — 65 N.Y. 598 · caselaw · US
Property · MBE-tested
James Bowman, Respondent, v. Attila J. Keleman, Appellant
65 N.Y. 598·New York Commission of Appeals·1875·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
James Bowman, Respondent, v. Attila J. Keleman, Appellant.
(Argued May 7, 1875;
decided June term, 1875.)
This was an action to recover rent due under a lease. The lessors, subsequent to the execution of the lease, sold and conveyed the premises to plaintiff, and thereafter executed to him an assignment of the lease. Defendant objected that as by the deed to plaintiff the lessors divested themselves of all rights under the lease, the assignment was a nullity, and the plaintiffs should have brought their action as grantees, not assignees. Held, that whether the plaintiff acquired the right of action by the grant or the assignment, as the cause of action was the same, it was a matter of no concern to defendant; his rights were in no way prejudiced, and the objection was not tenable.
JEdwwrd Van Hess for the appellant.
F. A. Paddock for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Gray, C.,]
Gray, C.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.