DocketNumber: No. 24,872.
Judges: PER CURIAM.
Filed Date: 6/26/1925
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Plaintiff had occupied the premises in controversy under a written lease for a term of 5 years which expired on March 1, 1925; and the action for possession was based on the claim that he was unlawfully withholding possession after the expiration of his term. Plaintiff bases his action for an injunction on the claim that after entering into the written lease he made an oral agreement with the lessor whereby he was to make certain *Page 520 improvements on the premises in addition to those provided for in the lease and in consideration thereof was to have an additional term of 5 years. He asserts that he made the specified improvements at a large expense in reliance upon this oral agreement, and in substance asks for the specific performance of it.
Whether a temporary injunction shall be granted rests so largely in the discretion of the trial court, that this court interferes only when necessary to prevent manifest injustice. While plaintiff asserts the making of the oral agreement and the making of the additional improvements, the decided weight of the evidence is to the effect that neither the alleged oral agreement nor the alleged additional improvements were ever made. The record fully justified the ruling of the learned trial court, and its order is affirmed.