Buck v. Mueller

JurisdictionOregon
CourtOregon Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBefore WARNER; PERRY
CitationBuck v. Mueller, 207 Or. 169, 293 P.2d 736 (Or. 1956)
Decision Date23 February 1956
PartiesMilton LeRoy BUCK, Appellant, v. Dora McLeod MUELLER, Respondent.

E. R. Robnett, Portland, for appellant. With him on the briefs were Easley & Whipple, Portland.

George P. Winslow, Tillamook, for respondent. On the brief were Winslow & Winslow, Tillamook.

Before WARNER, C. J., and ROSSMAN, LATOURETTE, and PERRY, JJ.

PERRY, Justice.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for breach of a covenant in an executed lease granting him an option to re-lease the property of the defendant.

The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained by the trial court, and the plaintiff has appealed.

The plaintiff's complaint, insofar as it is pertinent to this opinion, alleges the following:

'V.

'On or about August 1, 1952, and more than 90 days prior to the expiration of said lease, plaintiff exercised his said option to re-lease said premises by notifying defendant in writing of his intention so to do, and offered and attempted to renegotiate the rental for said additional period in good faith, and at all times plaintiff performed all conditions, covenants, terms and provisions of said lease on his part to be performed.

'VI.

'From on or about August 1, 1952, until April 20, 1953, plaintiff made repeated offers, demands and attempts to renegotiate said rental in good faith for said additional period, but defendant, arbitrarily and capriciously and acting without good faith, refused, failed and neglected to renegotiate said rental, and on February 10, 1953, plaintiff tendered defendant the sum of $100. as rental for the period of March 13, 1953 to April 13, 1953, which said tneder was refused and returned by defendant, and plaintiff alleges that at the time he exercised his said option and at the expiration of said lease a reasonable rental for said premises according to the going rent and existing conditions at said times does not and did not exceed the sum of $100. per month.

'VII.

'Thereafter, and prior to the expiration of said lease, plaintiff offered to submit the determination of said rental for said additional period to arbitration, as provided in said lease, but defendant, arbitrarily and capriciously and acting without good faith, refused, failed and neglected to submit the same to arbitration, and on or about April 10, 1953, in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Tillamook, defendant brought suit against plaintiff to recover possession of said premises and to recover damages against plaintiff for his alleged wrongful possession thereof from March 13, 1953, at the rate of $200.00 per month, thereby ousting plaintiff and forcing him to vacate said premises and to surrender possession thereof to defendant on or about April 20, 1953.

'VIII.

'Said acts and omissions of defendant in refusing to renegotiate said rental, in refusing to submit the same to arbitration and in ousting plaintiff from possession of said premises, constitute a breach of said lease, to plaintiff's general damage in the sum of $2500.00.'

The lease set out in the complaint provides, among other matters, the following:

'Should first party desire to re-rent the property herein described at the expiration of this lease, then second parties shall have the first privilege of rerenting the same upon terms and conditions then specified by first party.

* * *

* * *

'Second parties shall have an exclusive option to re-lease the property herein mentioned and described for another three year period. Should second parties exercise their option to re-lease said property for said additional three year period second parties shall give first party written notice of their intention to exercise their...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
  • Buck v. Mueller
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • April 13, 1960
    ...complaint. We held that the trial court erred and we remanded the cause directing the court to overrule the demurrer. Buck v. Mueller, 1956, 207 Or. 169, 293 P.2d 736. The cause was then tried to a jury which resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. Defendant then moved for a new trial whic......
  • Nigro v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 12, 1982
    ...226 (Tex.Civ.App.1971), first right of refusal provision unenforceable because terms of rental were not agreed to; Buck v. Mueller, 207 Or. 169, 293 P.2d 736 (1956), first right of refusal and option to renew are not terms mutually repugnant; Jamison v. Lindblom, 92 Ohio App. 324, 110 N.E.2......
  • Rickenbach v. Flavel
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • October 23, 1975