v. Equitable Life Assur. Society, 233 N. Y. 300; Dunning v. Leavitt, 85 N. Y. 30; Arnold v. Nichols, 64 N. Y. 117; Williston on Contracts, § 394; Lane & Co. v. United Oil Cloth Co., 103 App. Div. 378; DeWitt v. Monjo, 46 App. Div. 533.) The trial justice erred in holding that the agreement for the return of the deposit contained in the lease was personal to Aaron; that Mazer, as grantee of the reversion and the landlord of the plaintiff’s assignors, was not - a party interested in the deposit agreement nor entitled to hold the deposit according to the terms of the lease; and that Mazer was liable to the plaintiff for the return of the deposit before September 1, 1930, because he assumed the obligation of Aaron to repay the same. [Vyvyan v. Arthur, 1 Barn. & C. 410; Douglaston Realty Co. v. Hess, 124 App. Div. 508; Adler v. Lowenstein, 52 Misc. Rep. 556; Mauro v. Alvino, 90 Misc. Rep. 328.) This action as against the defendant Mazer is premature. The recovery of the deposit must abide the liquidation of the loss. (Lenco, Inc., v. Hirschfeld, 247 N. Y. 44.)
Bennett E. Siegelstein for respondent.