
    Catherine S. Horton, Resp’t, v. Marie L. Carhart, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed February 13, 1888.)
    
    1. Estoppel—Representations made by agent within scope op authority—Binding on principal.
    A lessor who authorizes a person to show property to applicants, is hound hy his representations as to what is included within a lot rented to a lessee who accepts a lease, relying on those representations.
    3. Injunction—When granted—What is meant by irreparable damage.
    Where the lessor enters upon the property so leased, and threatens to use-it in such a manner as will destroy in part the lessee’s use of it, Held, that irreparable damage was threatened within the meaning of the law and that the court would grant a judgment restraining such action on the part of the lessor, although able and willing to respond in money damages.
    Appeal from a judgment rendered before Mr. Justice Dykman, at special term.
    This is an action to restrain the defendant from trespassing upon and making unlawful possession of certain premises leased by the defendant to the plaintiff. The facts are as follows: On the 27th day of February, 1886, the plaintiff' leased of the defendant certain premises for the term of three years, to begin from the first day of April, 1886. Before leasing the premises, plaintiff’s attention was called to' the fact that they were to rent by seeing a sign on the premises to the following effect, that the place was to let, and to apply to Mr. Skinner on the Carhart place. She also saw the place advertised in the paper. Plaintiff went to see one Mr. Tibbits, a real estate agent, who had advertised the premises, and in company with him, went to the property and met Mr. Skinner, who was the defendant’s-foreman, and was authorized by her to show the property to applicants. Skinner pointed out the plaintiff the boundaries of the property to be leased. The boundaries pointed out are the same as those by which the property was conveyed to the defendant, by one Mrs. Waller; and the property included in said boundaries, was formerly known as the Waller Cottage, and since they were sold by Mrs. Waller to defendant, as the Oarhart Cottage. The property occupied by the defendant is adjoining on the south, and is distinct and separate from the property leased to the plaintiff. The lease was executed for defendant by one Mr. Mitchell, who is the attorney and agent for the defendant, and has charge of all her property. The plaintiff thereupon entered into possession and is still in possession. On or about the 1st of July, 1886, when the plaintiff was cutting the hay on the property, and within the bounds pointed out to her by Skinner, defendant objected to the plaintiff’s cutting the .grass, on the ground that the lease did not include the property. This dispute was adjusted and settled by the defendant through her attorney. Mr. Mitchell, writing two letters to plaintiff, in which she acknowledged her misunderstanding as to the property leased, waives all right to it, and admits that it is the same property as that described in the lease.
    On the 29th of April, 1887, defendant began to dump manure on and to plow land within the boundaries pointed out to plaintiff by Skinner, and within the boundaries admitted by defendant to have been leased to plaintiff, and to take and continue the forcible possession thereof; and continued her trespass thereon against plaintiff’s objection and remonstrance, and again claimed the right to the posses-sion of the premises until an injunction pendente lite was granted by Mr. Justice Dykman. After trial, judgment was rendered granting plaintiff a permanent injunction during the term of the lease.
    
      E. H. P. Squire, for resp’t; Close & Robertson, for app’lt.
   Pratt, J.

The lease under, which plaintiff claims is for the Oarhart cottage and appurtenances, and paroi evidence is competent to show what were the appurtenances.

Skinner, who pointed out the land to plaintiff as being a portion of the premises to be rented, had been defendant’s foreman for five years, and was authorized to show the property to applicants. He was thus acting in the line of his authority, and his employer is bound by his acts.

The letters of Mr. Mitchell were competent evidence as showing the interpretation of the ambiguous description by the leasor during the first year of the lease.

The damages to be apprehended were irreparable within the meaning of the law. Money damages will not compensate for injuries which cannot be measured by money. A lessee who hires a house with a lawn and ornamental grounds cannot be required to submit to the loss of the ornamental part of the estate because the lessor may be. willing and able to respond in money damages.

A court of equity will, in such case, protect the lessee in the enjoyment of the premises in the condition in which they were demised.

Judgment affirmed with costs.

Barnard, P. J., concurs; Dykman, J., not sitting.  