
    Milton M. Senz, Inc., Respondent, v. Grace E. Hammer et al., Appellants.
    (Argued October 9, 1934;
    decided November 20, 1934.)
    
      
      M. Edward Kelly for appellants.
    
      
      Samuel R. Wachtell for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The provisions of the lease are not free from obscurity but the inference must fairly be drawn that the parties contemplated the deposit as security for the performance of all the covenants and that the landlord’s agreement to repay it after the expiration of the lease was conditioned upon the tenant’s full performance. The tenant’s default renders applicable the rule announced in International Publications, Inc., v. Matchabelli (260 N. Y. 451) and Hand v. Rifkin (263 N. Y. 416).

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch and Loughran, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.  