
    (10 Misc. Rep. 47.)
    WALLACE v. DIMMONY.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    October 23, 1894.)
    Landlord and Tenant—Action nor Rent.
    A verdict is properly directed for plaintiff in an action for rent, where-the defense is that defendant sold his business to a corporation which, took possession of the premises, and that plaintiff accepted said corporation as a tenant, but there was no evidence showing any surrender ot the original lease, and the corporation refused to make a new lease.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by Ruth A. Wallace against Terral 0. Dimmony, Jr., for-rent. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before EHRLICH, C. J., and NEWBURGER, J.
    John J. Adams, for appellant.
    John H. Miller, for respondent.
   NEWBURGER, J.

This action is for 10 months’ rent due under-a lease. The defendant admits the making of the lease, but claims, to have sold his business to a corporation who took possession of the-premises, and that the plaintiff accepted said corporation as a tenant. At the close of the defendant’s case the trial justice directed a verdict for the plaintiff, to which defendant duly excepted.. There is no evidence in the case showing any surrender of the original lease. The evidence clearly shows that the corporation refused to make a new lease. The direction was a proper one, and the-judgment must be affirmed, with costs.  