Isman v. Hanscom
Citation | 66 A. 329,217 Pa. 133 |
Parties | ISMAN v. HANSCOM et al. |
Decision Date | 25 February 1907 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
217 Pa. 133
ISMAN
v.
HANSCOM et al.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Feb. 25, 1907.
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County.
Bill by Felix Isman, agent, against Edward E. Hanscom and Melville Hanscom. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
It appeared that fittings referred to in the bill were as follows: Shelving, etc., gentlemen's toilet room, etc., ladies' toilet room, etc., four dumb-waiters, inlaid floor, vestibule, wall decorations, two brick ovens, electric lights, apparatus, etc., gallery.
Argued before MITCHELL, C. J., and FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT, ELKIN, and STEWART, JJ.
Edmund W. Kirby and Robert J. Byron, for appellants. Alexander Henry Carver, for appellee.
MESTREZAT, J. The important and controlling question in this case arises out of the construction of the lease between the parties. The question of trade or tenant fixtures does not enter into the case, and hence need not be considered. The lease, which is the contract between the parties, determines the ownership of the property in question, and hence the rights of the parties thereto depend entirely upon the proper interpretation of the instrument. If the lease had been silent as to the ownership of the various items of property in dispute, then it would have been necessary to determine whether the property was trade fixtures, and if so, to whom it belonged—to the landlord or the tenant. When, however, a landlord and tenant stipulate in their lease as to the ownership of chattels which may be placed upon the demised premises by the tenant, the stipulation will be enforced regardless of what might be the rights of the parties at common law. In such cases, the contract is the law made by the parties themselves, and that must determine their rights.
By an agreement dated November 14, 1899, Henry C. Lea leased to the defendants the ground floor, basement, and second floor of the premises at No. 1315 Market street, in the city of Philadelphia, for a term of 5 years and 16 days, commencing on December 15, 1899. The premises were to be used as a restaurant, and were fitted up for that purpose by the lessees, who installed therein the various items of property set out in the bill, and which are in dispute in this controversy. The lease contained the following clause: "And
the said lessees shall not make any alterations, additions, or improvements to the hereby demised premises without first having the consent, in writing, of the lessor, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial