
    MARCUS v. COLLINS BLDG. & CONST. CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    April 21, 1899.)
    Lease—Y alidity.
    The validity of a writing containing an agreement for a lease, with &B" the terms necessary to a valid lease between the parties executing it, is-not impaired by failure to transcribe it into a more formal document.
    Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Fifth district.
    Action by Joseph S. Marcus against the Collins Building & Construction Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before FBEEDMAE, P. J., and MacLEAE and LEVEED TBITT, JJ.
    J. L. Weinberg, for appellant.
    J. H. K. Blauvelt, for respondent.
   LEVEETBITT, J.

The only question involved in this appeal* I» whether a certain paper is a lease, or a mere agreement for a £eas&. As the paper contains all the terms and conditions necessary to a vjalid, binding contract between the parties, the unfulfilled transcription of the same terms and conditions into a more formal document does not impair the validity of the original contract. Therefore what was paid under it was rent. The facts that the amount was exactly one month’s installment, and that the plaintiff accepted a receipt as for rent, weigh heavily against his attempt to regain the money on the ground that it was a deposit. The recovery of the money paid was therefore properly denied him. The judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent. All concur.  