
    JOHN W. JARBOE, et al., Appellants, v. JAMES MULRY, Respondent.
    
      Lease for fpe years—letter signed, by party to be charged, containing other requisites, and alluding to premises only, “ as 1 described ihemf is insufficient.
    
    Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., Freedman and O’Gorman, JJ.
    
      Decided December 3, 1883.
    Appeal by plaintiffs, from judgment for defendant entered upon a direction at trial term. dismissing the complaint.
    Action was for alleged breach of an alleged contract to give a lease for five years of certain real estate. The only writing signed by the defendant was a letter directed to the plaintiff, as follows: “I to-day sold the lot to theQuintard Works and signed the contract for the same and received part of the money, hence that part is settled. I now propose to let the premises to you, as I described them, for five years at $1,800 per year, and with a privilege of five more, at $2,000, and will get it ready for occupancy on the 1st of April.”
    The court at General Term, said: “The only evidence that the proposition of this letter was ever accepted, which was necessary to the existence of the contract, was another letter written by the plaintiff, but this letter contained terms and further propositions which were not in the writing signed by defendant. There was therefore, no contract proven. The letter moreover could not be considered to be a contract inasmuch as it did not state what premises were to be leased. The letter alluded to them as premises 4 as I described them.’ The reference was to a conversation. This could not be used as a part of a contract which by statute must be wholly in writing (Wright v. Weeks, 25 N* Y. 153). . •
    
      E. T. Wood, for appellants.
    
      Malcolm Campbell, for respondent.
   Opinion by Sedgwick, Ch. J.; Freedman and O’Gorman, JJ., concurred.

Judgment affirmed with costs.  