
    Ruth A. Wallace, Respondent, v. Terral C. Dimmony, Jr., Appellant.
    (City Court of New York
    General Term,
    October, 1894.)
    In an action for rent claimed to be due under a lease to the defendant, who admits the making of the lease, but claims to have sold his business to a corporation which took possession, where there is no proof of a surrender of the original lease, and it appears that the corporation refused to make a new one, a direction of a verdict for the plaintiff is proper.
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon a verdict directed by the court.
    
      John II. Miller, for respondent.
    
      John J. Adams, for appellant.
   Rewbubgeb, J.

This action is for ten months’ rent due under a lease.

The defendant admits the making of the lease, but claims to have sold his business to a corporation which took possession of the premises, and that the plaintiff accepted said corporation as a tenant.

At the close of the defendant’s case the trial justice directed a verdict for the plaintiff, to which defendant duly excepted.

There is no evidence in the case showing any surrender of the original lease.

The evidence clearly shows that the corporation refused to make a new lease.

The direction was a proper one, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Ehelioh, Oh. J., concurs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  