Ehrmanntraut v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 20 January 1893 |
| Citation | 54 N.W. 188,52 Minn. 333 |
| Parties | Joseph Ehrmanntraut, Jr., v. Sever Robinson et al |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Argued January 11, 1893
Appeal by defendants Sever Robinson, Oluf Larson, A. S. Hervin and Torkild Wilson, from an order of the Municipal Court of the City of St. Paul, Twohy, J., made September 22, 1892, denying their motion for a new trial.
On May 14, 1886, the plaintiff, Joseph Ehrmanntraut, Jr., by an instrument in writing under seal, leased to Sever Robinson and Oluf Larson, two of the defendants, as trustees of Nora Grove No. 23 of U. A. O. D., a hall in the third story of a building in St. Paul for five years. They therein agreed to pay as rent $ 25 monthly in advance. The other defendants were members of the society. It was not incorporated. This action was brought to recover the rent for the last eight months of the term. A jury was waived. Findings were made and judgment ordered for plaintiff for $ 200 and interest and costs. Defendants moved for a new trial, and being denied they appeal.
Order affirmed.
G. J Lomen, for appellants.
John H Ives, for respondent.
This action was brought on the covenants of a lease to recover rent for the last eight months of the term, viz. from September 1, 1890, to May 1, 1891. The evidence discloses the following facts: Nora Grove No. 23, U. A. O. D., of which the defendants were members, was an unincorporated association or society of individuals, formed for social and benevolent purposes, and not for gain or pecuniary profit. Among other officers, they had three trustees, of whom defendants Robinson and Larson were two. The scope and extent of the powers and duties of these trustees was to take charge of the property of the association. In May, 1886, Robinson and Larson, without authority, so far as appears, from their associates, procured from plaintiff the lease referred to, of the upper story of a certain building, for the term of five years, at an annual rent of $ 300, payable $ 25 monthly in advance. The lease runs to them as trustees of the association, and there is and can be no question but that in taking the lease these trustees assumed to act for and in behalf of the society. In July, 1886, the members of the association, including the defendants, entered into possession of the premises, and continued to hold their meetings there until some time in the fall of 1890, when the society disbanded. While the society occupied the premises they paid rent therefor, $ 25 per month, up to September 1, 1890. The lease was never reported to or acted on by the society at any of its meetings, and it may also be assumed that neither Hervin nor Wilson ever knew what the terms of the lease were, and that Hervin, perhaps, did not even know that there was any written lease. But there is abundant evidence to show that both of them knew that some agreement had been made in behalf of the association, with plaintiff, for the use of the premises, and that without inquiring, or in any way attempting to inform themselves, as to what the terms of that agreement were, they, in common with their associates, went into possession and continued to use and occupy the premises for the purposes of their society until they disbanded.
It seems to us that neither of the counsel has fully grasped the legal principles applicable to this state of facts.
Of course, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial