DocketNumber: NO. 8349
Citation Numbers: 5 Pelt. 760
Judges: Bell, William
Filed Date: 4/2/1923
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/24/2022
This is a suit Brought By plaintiff as lessor and ov/ner of premises Ho. 1005 Annunciation Street. She petition sets forth a claim for two months rent,for damages arising from the failure of plaintiff to rent her premises after same had Been vacated By the defendant for the reason of the filthy and delapidated condition in which the defendant is alleged to have left the premises. There is also an additional claim for estimated repairs necessary to place the Building in proper condition and to restore it to the condition in which it is alleged to have Been at the time plaintiff first leased the property to defendant, l'he prayer of the petition is for the recovery of the total sum of {457.50, But plaintiff's counsel in argument and Brief Before this court admits to cBrtain corrections in the amount originally claimed and now sets forth said amount to Be as folldns:
"Two months of the unexpired second year of the lease, January and ReBruary, of 1019, at_ {20.00 per month, amounting to, ------- -{40.00
"Rrom March 1, 1919, to December 1,
1919, nine months of the second year of the lease, at {20.00 per month, --------- -100.00
"Total cost of estimated repairs - - - -177.50
"Total of appellant's claim, ----- {397.50."
The original contract of lease out of which all this controversy has arisen is filed in the record and reads as follows:
"Rev/ Orleans, Louisiana,, Maroh 7, 1917. "Mrs. 'A. R. Gregory hereby leases to A. Haine-Back, of iiew Orleans, the premises ITo, 1003 and So. 1005 Armuneiation Street of this City of Hew Orleans, for use as a Bag place, for the term of one year, from March Í, 1917, to March 1, 1918, at a monthly rental of twenty (#20) dollars, payable in advance, with tfcc-privilege granted to Mr. MaineBach By lessor to renew this lease at the sa.ie j'ental and conditions for another year.
"Mr. haineBaok is not to out a hatchway in the Building, and partition on Bottom floor, if removed, to Be rut Back By Mr. Kair.oBack at his expense at the end of the lease.
"Thus signed this 7th day of Karon, 1917. "(signed) A. RaineBack.
"(¡Signed) Mrs. U.R. Gregory. "(Signed) 3. Oileie."
There was judgment for defendant dismissing plaintiff’s suit at her costs, from which judgment plaintiff appeals.
There are only issues of fact in this case, as we appreciate the evidence found in the record, and our conclusions as to these faots are as follows:
He find that the written contract of lease, as above quoted, and whioh contained a stipulation for renewal of the lease for another year, was not oarried out by either party to the original contract. There is no doubt that defendant remained on the
"ft.-Row in this oontraot you had given the privilege of renewal for one year?
"A.-Yes, sir.
"Q.-Was there any agreement between you two as to a change concerning that-
"A.-No, sir, he moved orit, and the year was not up; March had not come yet to renew — to make a new lease."
It is plain that the plaintiff's testimony as above quoted is erroneous, for it is shown by all other testimony in the reoord that the defendant did not vacate the premises until December, 1918, while in fact the original lease expired in Maroh of 1918. On this point we are satisfied with the testimony of both the defendant and his agent, Mr. Sanoheze, that the lease was not renewed between the parties by the year, but was verbally carried on on a basis of a month-t#-month verbal lease. We further find that the defendant made, extensive ohanges in the premises by erecting a roof over the entire back yard reaching from the ground to the second story of the building and that this was done shortly after moving in under the original lease and with the knowledge and approval of the plaintiff. It is a faot, as shown in plaintiff's petition, that the wall or partition in the building itself was demolished by the defendant during the term of the written lease, but it subsequently .appears that defendant offered, to restore the wooden partition and the brick foundation thereto, but that plaintiff stated to him that he need not do this, and that this understanding was had between the parties shortly after defendant had vacated the premises in December of 1918. It is further shown that
II IS, IHEHEi’OHB, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AMD DECREED that the judgment herein appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed, at plaintiff's costs in both oourts.
JUDGTSM! AEFIRIiSD.
AI-RID 2, 1923.