
    RAKOWITZ et al. v. BERNHEIMER & SCHWARTZ BREWING CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    June 18, 1914.)
    Trial (§ 189)—Question of Law or Fact—Direction of Verdict.
    Where there was testimony from which the jury might have found in favor of plaintiffs, it was error to direct a verdict for defendant,
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 832, 333, 338-341, 365; Dec. Dig. § 139.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
    Action by Samuel Rakowitz and another against Bernheimer & Schwartz Brewing Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.
    Reversed, and new trial granted.
    Argued June term, 1914, before SEABURY, PAGE, and BIJUR, JJ.
    Goldfein & Weltfisch, of New York City, for appellants.
    Rose & Putzel, of New York City (Norman P. S. Schloss, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

The only question raised at the trial of this case was as to whether or not one Applebaum, who was authorized to act for defendant, and with whom the plaintiffs claim an agreement- was made to pay the rent sued for, had power to make a lease binding on the defendant, and whether or not such a lease was made. Upon these questions testimony was given from which the jury might have found in favor of the plaintiffs. It was therefore error to direct a verdict for the defendant.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event.  