
    HOLLOWAY v. SCHMIDT et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    November 19, 1900.)
    Landlord and Tenant—Lease—Privilege op Renewal—Construction.
    Where, at the time of executing a lease for five years, the lessor informed the lessee that he gave no leases for ten years, a clause giving the lessee “the first privilege of a renewal” must be construed to mean that a renewal would he made to the lessee on the same terms, provided the-lessor made a lease.
    Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Tenth district.
    Action by James W. Holloway against Frederick Schmidt and-another. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before TRUAX, P. J., and DUGRO and SCOTT, JJ.
    ‘ James A. Deering, for appellant.
    Arnow & Cryer, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

The words, "first privilege of a renewal,” as used' in the lease, meant the prior right to a lease of five years upon terms the same as those in the lease of 1895, provided the landlord should-, give a lease. This construction seems reasonable, particularly in view of the evidence of Mrs. Schmidt that when the lease was first made, and her husband came down, Mr. Deering said, "We don’t give no ten years.”

The order is reversed, with costs. An order of dispossession will' be granted.  