Godfrey v. Black

• Decision Date: 07 April 1888
• Citation: Godfrey v. Black, 39 Kan. 193, 17 P. 849 (Kan. 1888)
• Parties: C. E. GODFREY v. ROBERT BLACK
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

17 P. 849

39 Kan. 193

C. E. GODFREY v. ROBERT BLACK

Supreme Court of Kansas

April 7, 1888

Error from Sedgwick District Court.

INJUNCTION brought by Robert Black against F. S. Roberts and M. O Roberts, partners as Roberts Brothers, and C. E. Godfrey, to restrain Roberts Brothers from subletting any portion of the Manhattan hotel, situated in the city of Wichita, and to restrain C. E. Godfrey from occupying the hotel office as a real-estate and brokerage office. In his petition, Black stated in substance that he was the owner of the premises and had constructed the building thereon to be used as a first-class hotel, and that he let the same to the Roberts Brothers to be used as a hotel from the 1st day of July 1885, to the 1st day of July, 1886, for a stipulated rent payable in monthly installments. It was further provided in the lease, which was in writing, that Roberts Brothers might elect to take the premises for the further period of four years after July 1, 1886, upon the same terms, by giving to Black a written notice of such election at any time prior to the 1st day of May, 1886. In pursuance of that stipulation, Roberts Brothers, within the time, elected to retain the lease for the additional four years, and gave written notice to that effect to the plaintiff. It was further provided in the lease, that Roberts Brothers might carry on any business in the building incident to the hotel business; but it was expressly stipulated that they should not lease nor underlet, nor permit any persons to occupy the premises without the consent of the plaintiff in writing having been first obtained. He alleges that he has never given Roberts Brothers any consent to occupy the building for any purpose other than that of a hotel, nor to lease or underlet the building or any part thereof, nor to permit any persons to occupy the same except as guests of the hotel. He alleges that the premises were to be occupied only as a hotel, and that it is injurious to the hotel to carry on in the office thereof the business of a real-estate agency and brokerage, and that it is such an injury as cannot be compensated in damages. Notwithstanding the premises, he avers that Roberts Brothers have leased to C. E. Godfrey a portion of the hotel building used as the hotel office, and that Godfrey, his agents and employes, are occupying the same as a real-estate office and place of business. He further states that Roberts Brothers are threatening and intending to continue said lease and underletting to Godfrey, and that Godfrey intends to occupy the room in the transaction of the real-estate business, against the protest and without Black's consent, and to his irreparable injury. He asks that an injunction issue prohibiting Roberts Brothers from leasing or underletting the hotel building and premises or any part thereof to Godfrey for a real-estate office, and restraining Godfrey and his agents and employes from occupying the office of the hotel or any part thereof as a real-estate office.

The petition was verified, and introduced in evidence in support of the application for a temporary injunction. In addition, the affidavits of several persons were offered, tending to show that the carrying on of a real-estate business in the office of a first-class hotel brings a crowd and an excitement which interferes with the convenience and comfort of guests, and tends to drive them away and to render the hotel unpopular.

C. E Godfrey testified that he had leased from Roberts Brothers a space eight by twenty feet in the corner of the hotel office and put a railing around and furnished the same, and was carrying on a real-estate business therein. On January 3,1887, a hearing was had upon due notice, and a temporary injunction was granted against Godfrey during the pendency of the action enjoining him and his agents and employes from further using any...