
    James W. Hamblett, Appellant, v. Rudolph Liede, Respondent.
    (New York Common Pleas
    Additional General Term,
    January, 1895.)
    A request made by a party negotiating for a lease to the real estate agents of the landlord to find a tenant for part of the premises cannot be regarded as evidence that he regarded himself as being bound by a lease of the entire premises, especially where he testifies that he made such request in order to find out whether a portion could be let before he engaged to take it all.
    Appeal from the District Court of the city of ¡New York for the first judicial district.
    
      H. JD. <& E. L. MeEurney, for appellant.
    
      Fred. V. Mayforth, for respondent.
   Per Owriam.

There is a direct conflict between the testimony of the plaintiff’s manager and the testimony of the defendant as to whether any agreement to lease was definitely concluded between them. Two visits made by the defendant upon the real estate agents, Birdsall & Co., appear, at first sight, like admissions that the defendant regarded himself as a tenant of the premises in question. Upon his first visit, he requested these agents, who, as the plaintiff’s manager had told him, were the ones usually employed by the plaintiff, to-find a tenant for a part of the loft; but the defendant explains this by saying that he wanted to find whether a part of the loft could be let before he engaged to take it all, as it was more than he needed. When he called the second time, he directed Birdsall & Co. to change the entry and make it the entire loft for Mr. Hamblett.” But this direction by its own terms disclaims any liability on his part, and cannot be regarded as evidence that he considered himself as being bound by a lease of the entire floor, and that he was in search of someone to take his place as tenant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Present: Bookstaveb and Bischoff, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  