Gardner v. Commissioners of Dakota Co.

• Decision Date: 19 August 1874
• Citation: 21 Minn. 33
• Parties: A. W. GARDNER <I>vs.</I> BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DAKOTA COUNTY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

21 Minn. 33

A. W. GARDNERvs.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DAKOTA COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

August 19, 1874.

The plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Dakota county to recover the sum of $200, as the arrears of rent, for the year 1871, of certain premises alleged to have been let by the plaintiff to the defendant, at a yearly rent of $800. A jury was waived, and the action tried before Crosby, J., upon whose findings judgment was entered for the defendant, a motion for a new trial having been denied.

The plaintiff appeals from the judgment, and from the order refusing a new trial.

T. R. Huddleston, for appellant.

Seagrave Smith, for respondent.

McMILLAN, C. J.

The plaintiff was the lessor, and the defendant the lessee, in an indenture of lease, which is attached to and made part of the defendant's answer in this action, bearing date January 10, 1863. By the terms of the instrument, the plaintiff demised and leased to the defendant the premises described therein, being the same premises described in the complaint, for the full term of three years from January 1, 1863, at the rent of $600 per annum, payable in equal quarterly payments of one hundred and fifty dollars each, at the end of each quarter. "The party of the second part, (the defendant,) has the privilege; if it desires, to continue in the occupancy of the leased premises for one, two or three years longer than the first three years above named, at the same rent, and upon the same terms as herein specified for the first three years, upon giving to the party of the first part, (the plaintiff,) notice of its desire to retain it longer, within one month from the termination of said first three years; provided, however, that if the county seat of said county (Dakota) shall be moved from said city of Hastings, or if said county shall erect county buildings before the expiration of the term or terms mentioned in this lease for the rent of said premises therein, in that case the said party of the second part shall have the right to vacate said premises, and surrender the same up to the party of the first part, his heirs or assigns; and when the same shall be vacated and surrendered, as aforesaid, and for the reason aforesaid, to the said party of the first part, his heirs and assigns, these presents shall be null and void, and shall be of no binding force as against either party thereto."

By consent of parties, the cause was tried by the court. The finding of the court is as follows: "I find as facts in said action, from the evidence and admissions made in open court, that the defendant was, prior to January 1, 1869, in possession, as tenant, of the rooms, (premises,) described in the plaintiff's complaint, under and in accordance with the terms of the lease attached to defendant's answer; that said lease expired December 31, 1868, having been continued by agreement. That on January 7, 1869, the plaintiff addressed the following communication to the defendant:

`To the Hon. Board of County Commissioners of Dakota county, Minn. The lease of my building, now occupied as county offices, having expired sometime ago, I am anxious to enter into a new lease for said offices. For the future, I cannot afford to rent the offices for less than eight hundred dollars per annum. Yours respectfully, A. W. Gardner.' That on the same day the board of county commissioners acted upon said communication, and the following is the record of their action therein: `A communication was received from A. W. Gardner, offering to lease county offices for a longer term, for $800 per year, and the chairman of the board was authorized to rent the same for two years, with the privilege of three years.'

"That soon after the action of the board of county commissioners, the chairman of the board gave the plaintiff notice that the board had accepted his proposition to let them have the rooms for a longer time, at a rent of $800 per annum, but did not state for what time the defendant would want the rooms, nor did he give plaintiff notice that he was authorized to rent them for two years with the privilege of three. That the defendant continued to occupy the rooms until the first day of October, 1871, and paid rent therefor up to that time quarterly. At the time the chairman of the board gave notice of acceptance, as aforesaid, it was understood between him and plaintiff that the rent should be paid every three months. That in the month of July, 1871, the chairman of the board of county commissioners gave the plaintiff notice that the defendant would vacate the rooms on or before October 1, 1871, and not occupy them after that time, to which the plaintiff did not dissent. That on the first day of October, 1871, the court-house was completed and ready for occupancy. That during the last week in September, 1871, the defendant vacated said rooms, and the public offices of the county were removed to the court-house. That sometime during the last week in September, 1871, said chairman of said board delivered the keys of said rooms to the plaintiff, and gave him notice that the defendant had vacated said rooms; that said plaintiff received the keys, but told said chairman he should expect and claim rent for the remainder of that year. As conclusions of law, I find that the plaintiff cannot recover in...