Alexander v. Hodges

• Decision Date: 21 October 1879
• Citation: 41 Mich. 691,3 N.W. 187
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: JOHN E. ALEXANDER v. HENRY C. HODGES and others.

3 N.W. 187

41 Mich. 691

JOHN E. ALEXANDER v. HENRY C. HODGES and others.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 21, 1879

A lease of billiard and wine rooms of hotel covenanted that the property placed on the premises should be kept free from liens and encumbrances, and that the laws and ordinances relating to such business should be fully complied with, and on failure to comply with any of the covenants at any of the times mentioned for performance, the landlord should have the right to re-enter, and thereupon the lease should terminate etc. Held, that failure to comply with the covenants in regard to encumbrances, and obeying the laws and ordinances was ground for forfeiture; that such conditions were continuous, and compliance not waived by receipt of rent after an encumbrance was created; and that demand for possession sufficient to constitute a common-law entry was sufficient to entitle the landlord to recover the possession.

Error to Wayne.

Fraser & Gates, for plaintiff in error.

Maybury & Conely, for defendant in error.

CAMPBELL C.J.

Judgment was rendered against plaintiff in error on the trial of an appeal in summary proceedings under the landlord and tenant act. The ground for these proceedings was his violation of the conditions of a lease; and the conditions broken, on which chief reliance was placed, were conditions against encumbrances of furniture, and against violations of laws and ordinances relating to the business.

The premises leased were the billiard and wine rooms in the Brunswick Hotel, Detroit. The lease was on condition that all the property placed on the premises by the lessee "shall be kept absolutely free from all liens and encumbrances of every kind and nature." There was a further condition requiring him "to fully comply with all laws and ordinances relating to the business."

The lease also provided that in case of the non-performance of any of the covenants made by the lessee, "at any of the times mentioned for the performance thereof," it should be lawful for the lessees to "re-enter and the same to have again, retain, repossess, etc.; and "from and after such re-entry made this lease, and every part thereof, shall cease and be absolutely void as it respects the covenants to be performed by the said parties of the first part."

There was clear evidence of the existence of a chattel mortgage on some of the furniture, and of violation of laws and ordinances...