
    Jennie L. Canfield, Appellant, v. Elmer E. Harris & Co., Respondent.
    
      Landlord, and tenant — action for rent — whether tenant holds over by leaving property on premises after expiration of lease.
    
    
      Canfield v. Harris & Co., 222 App. Div. 326, affirmed.
    (Argued April 5, 1928;
    decided May 1, 1928.)
    Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered December 30, 1927, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court and granting a new trial. The action was for rent and was brought on the theory that defendant became liable by holding over after expiration of its lease. The Appellate Division held that whether defendant became hable to pay rent for another year by leaving property on the premises presented a question of fact which should have been submitted to the jury.
    
      H. B. Butterfield for appellant.
    
      Henry Adsit Bull for respondent.
   Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in ah courts; no opinion.

Concur: Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Andrews, Lehman, Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ.  