Brown v. Samuels
Decision Date | 17 December 1902 |
Citation | 70 S.W. 1047 |
Parties | BROWN v. SAMUELS et al. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Bullitt county.
"Not to be officially reported."
Action of forcible detainer by John Samuels and others against Charles Brown. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs defendant appeals. Reversed.
J. F Combs, for appellant.
Chas Carroll, for appellees.
In October, 1895, appellee Samuels leased to appellant, Brown by a written contract, for five years, with the privilege of five years more, three-fourths of an acre of ground on which stood a box house about 12 feet wide and 24 feet long, made of rough lumber. The house had been used for a storeroom, but had been vacant for two years. Appellant built on the premises a house of two rooms, a porch and hall, a warehouse a cellar house, a porch or platform in front of the store, a chicken house, a stable, and some other outbuildings, dug a well, and built a fence around the premises. The original house was covered with clapboards, and so were the houses that appellant built. He puts his improvements at $500, while appellee puts their value at less than half that,--$200 or $225. At the end of the five years Samuels saw Brown, and wanted him to pay rent for the property for the next five years. Brown said he was not to pay any rent, and that by the contract he was to hold for five years more. Samuels said that he would sue him if he did not pay, and Brown answered that he did not think he owed him anything, and added: Samuels then instituted this proceeding of forcible detainer against Brown, and obtained a judgment in his favor, both before the county judge and in the circuit court. The ground of the proceeding is that Brown, by refusing to pay rent, failed to exercise his option to hold the property for the second five years on the idea that he thereby repudiated the contract, or abandoned his right to hold under it. The case turns largely upon the writing itself, which is in these words: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lexington Flying Service v. Anderson's Ex'r
...in express terms given the right 'to renew' or 'to extend' his first term. Some of the many of such recent cases are: Brown v. Samuels, 70 S.W. 1047, 24 Ky.Law Rep. 1216; Kentucky Lumber Co. v. Newell & Co., 105 S.W. 972, 32 Ky.Law Rep. 396; Grant v. Collins, 157 Ky. 36, 162 S.W. 539, Ann.C......
-
Miller v. Albany Lodge No. 206, F. & A.M.
...45 Ind.App. 215, 90 N.E. 642; Chandler v. McGinning, 8 Kan. App. 421, 55 P. 103; Delashman v. Berry, 20 Mich. 292, 4 Am.Rep. 392. In Brown v. Samuels, supra, Samuels leased to Brown premises "for the period of five years with the privilege of five years more." The court, after pointing out ......
-
Kozy Theatre Company v. Love
...controversy arose, and that the mere fact it is called a privilege to renew is not conclusive. Illustrative cases are Brown v. Samuels, 24 Ky. L. R. 1216, 70 S. W. 1047; Ky. Lumber Co. v. Newall & Co., 32 Ky. L. R. 396, 105 S. W. 972; Grant v. Collins, 157 Ky. 36, 162 S. W. 539; Miller v. A......
-
Cain v. Lawrence Drug Co.
... ... the right "to renew" or "to extend" his ... first term. Some of the many of such recent cases are: ... Brown v. Samuels, 70 S.W. 1047, 24 Ky. Law Rep ... 1216; Kentucky Lumber Co. v. Newell & Co., 105 S.W ... 972, 32 Ky. Law Rep. 396; Grant v. Collins, ... ...