Apex Co. v. Grant
Decision Date | 27 June 1925 |
Docket Number | (No. 9363.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 276 S.W. 445 |
Parties | APEX CO. v. GRANT et ux. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; T. A. Work, Judge.
Action by J. E. Grant and wife against the Apex Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Crane & Crane and H. E. Spafford, all of Dallas, for appellant.
Thompson, Knight, Baker & Harris, of Dallas, for appellees.
In a suit in the district court of Dallas county, appellees, J. E. Grant and wife, recovered judgment against appellant, the Apex Company, a corporation, in the sum of $12,628.87 as damages for breach of a contract of lease. Appellee J. E. Grant was the owner of the building at the time the contract was made and at the time appellant repudiated the contract, but, pending the controversy between the parties, the building and lease contract were sold to J. M. Coleman. Previous to the trial of the case, however, Coleman conveyed the building and the lease contract to appellee Mrs. M. C. Grant, who is the wife of J. E. Grant. During all this time appellee J. E. Grant had active control of the building, either as owner or agent for the owners, and where the term "appellee" is used in this opinion it refers to J. E. Grant. The following are the facts:
J. E. Grant was the owner of a business house located on North Harwood street in the city of Dallas, Tex., and, as evidenced by a written contract, leased said building to appellant for a term of two years from January 1, 1921, for the sum of $19,200, payable in monthly installments of $800 on the 1st of each month. Appellant's business was that of a wholesale and retail dealer in wall paper, paint, and glass, and the sum of $580 was expended by the owner in making the building suitable for this business. After appellant had occupied the leased premises for approximately seven months, it notified appellee that its business had increased to such an extent that it was necessary to have more space and that it had leased another building. It asked permission of appellee to sublet said building for the remainder of the term of its lease, and asked consent for Sandusky & Beck to take over the said lease as its subtenants. Sandusky & Beck desired to use the building as a storeroom for automobiles and also as an automobile garage. Appellee declined to permit appellant to sublet the building to the proffered tenants, on the ground that it would increase the fire hazard and that the character of business, for which the proffered tenants would use the building, would tend to decrease its rental value and would change its character from that of a mercantile building, which carried a higher rental. Appellee insisted on appellant's carrying out its written contract of lease, though he signified that a tenant who would use the building for mercantile business would be acceptable to him as a subtenant. No other tender of a tenant was proffered appellee by appellant. After some correspondence and oral conversations between appellee and the representatives of appellant, appellant notified appellee that it would pay the monthly installments of rent under the contract up to and including the 30th day of September, 1921, but would not thereafter occupy the building or pay the rent, claiming the right to cancel the lease because of appellee's refusal to accept the proffered tenant. Appellee notified appellant of his denial of this right, and that he would insist on appellant's carrying out its contract. He also notified appellant if it did repudiate the contract as indicated, he would attempt to re-rent the building, but only for appellant's account, and would still hold it for whatever difference there might be in the contract rental and the amount of rental he might thus be able to receive.
The jury, on the special issue submitted, found that appellee used reasonable diligence to realize from the property all rents and revenues practicable for the remaining period of the contract. As this finding is abundantly supported by evidence, it is adopted as the finding of this court. The sum of $969.35 was realized by appellee as rental on the building for the remainder of the term of appellant's lease, and this sum was deducted from the balance due under the lease contract, interest being allowed on each monthly installment from the time it became due.
The lease contract had a stipulation that the building was "to be occupied as wholesale and retail wall paper, paint, and glass store, and not otherwise." The contract also contained the two following clauses:
The cause was submitted to the jury on special issues, in which the jury was only required to answer the first issue submitted because of the finding made on this issue. As the questions to be decided on this appeal relate to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Austin Hill Country Realty, Inc. v. Palisades Plaza, Inc.
...Ctr., Inc. v. Vantage Properties, Inc., 646 S.W.2d 263, 265 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Apex Co. v. Grant, 276 S.W. 445, 447 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1925, writ ref'd); see generally E.L. Kellett, Annotation, Landlord's Duty, On Tenant's Failure to Occupy, or Abandonment of, Pr......
-
Missouri-Kansas-Texas Ry. Co. v. Cunningham
...Davis v. Pettitt (Tex. Com. App.) 258 S. W. 1046; Veazey v. Gal. H. & S. A. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 290 S. W. 283; Apex Company v. Grant (Tex. Civ. App.) 276 S. W. 445; Houston L. & P. Co. v. Daily (Tex. Civ. App.) 291 S. W. "In view of the importance of the questions and a lack of entire ......
-
Williams v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc.
...not have been bound to accept Vantage on any other terms and conditions other than those reflected in the lease agreement. Apex Co. v. Grant, 276 S.W. 445, 446-47 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1925, no writ). It is also clear that Kaiser did have an absolute right to assign as to the primary Initial......
-
Silbert v. Keton
...17 Tex. Civ. App. 167, 42 S. W. 774, 775; Goldman v. Broyles (Tex. Civ. App.) 141 S. W. 283, 286, 287, par. 6; Apex Co. v. Grant (Tex. Civ. App.) 276 S. W. 445, 448, par. 2 (writ Appellee, merely because he was a surety, had no greater rights than the lessees. He had no right to demand, as ......