Goebel v. Hough
| Citation | 2 N.W. 847,26 Minn. 252 |
| Parties | Lillie Goebel and others v. Sherwood Hough and another |
| Decision Date | 24 October 1879 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Action to recover the rent of a building on Third street in St Paul. The complaint alleged occupancy by defendants under a lease for one year from May 1, 1877, at a rent, reserved therein, of $ 83.33 per month until plaintiffs should make certain contemplated improvements, and $ 100 per month thereafter; that the plaintiffs made such improvements and completed them on October 10, 1877, but that the defendants have paid no part of the rent for the months succeeding August, 1877.
In their answer the defendants admit that they took possession of the premises on May 1, 1877, under a lease from plaintiffs for the term of one year from that date, and carried on a general business as booksellers and stationers therein during the term. They further admit that by the terms of the lease they were to pay rent at the rate of $ 83.33 per month during the term or until the plaintiffs should, in the months of June and July, 1877, make certain repairs, and that if such repairs should be made in those months, the defendants should thereafter pay rent at the rate of $ 100 per month; and that in the lease it was further agreed that plaintiffs might take down and rebuild the front part of the second story of the building during June and July, 1877, but that no other part of the building should be taken down, rebuilt or repaired during the term, and that no right was reserved by or conceded to plaintiffs to make the said or any repairs or alterations except in the months of June and July, which were the dullest and least profitable months to the defendants in their business. That the plaintiffs did not exercise the right to enter and make repairs during these months, nor until September 18, 1877, when without defendants' consent they entered the premises and expelled the defendants from the front part thereof, whereby they were evicted and deprived of the possession and use of the premises for one month and two days.
For a counterclaim, the defendants, after alleging an agreement on plaintiffs' part not to disturb them in the possession and use of the premises except while making the above-mentioned repairs, and not to make those repairs except during the months of June and July, allege that the defendants entered and took possession of the premises, and tore down and rebuilt the whole front wall and other parts of the building, and expelled the defendants from the front one-half thereof, and obstructed, blockaded and made impassable the sidewalk and front door of the building from September 18th to October 20th. They further allege the amount of stock kept by them in those months, and of their uniform sales during those months and the uniform profits on such sales; and that by reason of the disturbance of their occupation and use of the premises, they were hindered from making their uniform sales and profits, and were deprived of such sales to the amount of $ 2,250, and of such profits to the amount of $ 750. Various other items of damage are also set forth, including depreciation of stock, cost of moving stock to the rear portion of the building, damage to the stock by such removal, etc., etc., the whole damage amounting to more than the rent admitted to be unpaid. The counterclaim was duly put in issue by a reply.
At the trial in the district court for Ramsey county, before Wilkin J., the plaintiffs objected to the introduction of any evidence by defendants, on the ground that no defence and no valid counterclaim was pleaded therein. The objection was overruled, the plaintiffs excepting, and the defendants introduced evidence, as stated in the opinion, to show the value of their business and the damage to it, as well as their other damages alleged in the counterclaim, and also evidence to sustain the allegations of the answer respecting the terms of the lease. The jury found for the defendants assessing their damages at $ 5; a new trial was refused, and plaintiffs appealed.
Order reversed, and new trial ordered.
John B. & W. H. Sanborn, for appellants.
Allis & Allis, for respondents.
In Gen St. c. 66, § 80, subd. 1, describing one class of causes of action that may be the subject of counterclaim, the clause, "or connected with the subject of the action," is very indefinite. But we think the statute allowing counterclaims, being a remedial statute, should be construed liberally, and thus construing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial