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.
Stephen G. Austin, Respondent, v. John C. Strong et al., Appellants, 1872 — 47 N.Y. 679 · caselaw · US
Property · MBE-tested
Stephen G. Austin, Respondent, v. John C. Strong et al., Appellants
47 N.Y. 679·New York Court of Appeals·1872·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
Stephen G. Austin, Respondent, v. John C. Strong et al., Appellants.
(Argued February 19, 1872;
decided March 26, 1872.)
Plaintiff leased to defendants an office for the term of five years, with the use of a closet or wash room supplied with water, in common with other tenants. The lease expired May 1st, 1858. Defendants contined to occupy, without any new agreement, until May, 1866. In July, 1860, plaintiff cut off the water pipes or the supply of water from the closet, but furnished other water to defendants upon the same floor. Defendants objected to the cutting off the water, but received, accepted and continued to use the water substituted by plaintiff. The new arrangement was made upon consultation with, and was satisfactory to, defendants. Defendants paid the rent for 1860, in full, after the change was made, without objection.
Held, that by using the substitute and paying the rent thereafter, defendants waived a suspension or forfeiture, and could not claim an eviction, and were therefore, liable for the rent. Also, that by the holding over, defendants became tenants from year to year ; that it was equivalent to a new lease, commencing with each year, and the eviction could have no application to the subsequent years.
A. J. Parker for appellants.
E. 0. Sprague for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Peokham, J.,]
Peokham, J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur ; Folgeb, J., absent.
Judgment affirmed.