Greenwood v. Bennett
Decision Date | 16 November 1922 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 589. |
Citation | 95 So. 159,208 Ala. 680 |
Parties | GREENWOOD ET AL. v. BENNETT. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1923.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Romaine Boyd, Judge.
Action of unlawful detainer by Arthur Greenwood and others against Angelo Bennett. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Erle Pettus, of Birmingham, for appellants.
Weatherly Birch & Hickman, of Birmingham, for appellee.
Statement.
The action was unlawful detainer, and resulted in judgment for defendant. The property in question was leased by C. H. Nabb the landlord, to defendant, Bennett, on November 19, 1918. The lease contained the following provisions:
On the reverse or back of said lease is the following:
The building embracing the store leased to Bennett was leased by Nabb to the Greenwoods (plaintiffs in the court below, appellants here) on July 25, 1919. In that lease was the stipulation that the premises are leased to September 30, 1926.
On that date, appellee being in possession of a portion of the premises-that part in dispute known as No. 411 North Twentieth street, Birmingham-and Nabb having transferred all his rights under the lease, together with rights to the rents (as of October 1, 1919), in August, 1919, paid rent to Nabb "up to October 1, 1919," and was instructed by Nabb to pay the rent accruing after October to the Greenwoods, which he did to the time the controversy arose as to the right of termination of his lease.
The whole property was sold on October 1, 1919, by the owner, C. H. Nabb, to S. F. and F. E. Nabers, who on the 10th day of that month addressed a communication to the Greenwoods as follows:
"You are hereby notified that the purchasers of said property desire to exercise the option of reducing said lease and hereby give notice to you as lessees of their desire to so reduce said term and hereby give notice that the term of said lease is reduced to five years and six months from the date of this notice."
Which expiration was October 10, 1924. This notice was not admitted in evidence on defendant's objection, to which exception was reserved.
On the same day said purchasers gave notice to:
On the following day notice was given defendant as follows:
And on March 10, 1920, notice was given defendant that his lease expired with the month "as per agreement in your [his] lease." Pending other negotiations (by the lessees, Greenwoods, with the tenant Bennett) if he saw his "way out to remain there, the rent will be $200 per month temporary until further notice, beginning with the month of April, 1920." And on June 5, 1920, defendant was given notice that:
The service of the several notices, the fact that after October 1, 1919, defendant paid rent to one of the Greenwoods, as he was directed by Nabb, that he went into possession of the premises in question after November 19, 1918, and retained same to and at the date of the trial in the circuit court, are uncontroverted facts, and on June 16, 1920, the unlawful detainer suit was instituted.
167 Ala. 627, 52 So. 746; Hooper v. Bankhead, 171 Ala. 626, 54 So. 549. However, these authorities were in ejectment, against a person not claiming under a tenant in common: in such case one tenant in common may recover the entire tract in this own name.
If before the maturity of the note given for the rent, the reversion of the freehold passes to another, the rent passes unless such right or the right to collect it is reserved to the grantor. Deposit Bank v. Caffee, 135 Ala. 208, 33 So. 152; Ala. Gold Life Ins. Co. v. Oliver, 78 Ala. 158; Coffey v. Hunt, 75 Ala. 236; Westmoreland v. Foster, 60 Ala. 448; Tubb v. Fort, 58 Ala. 277; English v. Key, 39 Ala. 113. The grantor, Nabb, instructed the tenant, Bennett, to pay after-accruing rent to the Greenwoods, and this he did. An attornment by the tenant to a subsequent purchaser is effectual as between themselves; the payment of rent as per the terms of the lease was evidence of or tended to show attornment; no evidence being introduced to the contrary. Birmingham Fuel Co. v. Boshell, 190 Ala. 597, 599, 67 So. 403; Howard v. Jones, 123 Ala. 488, 26 So. 129; Perkerson v. Snodgrass, 85 Ala. 137, 141, 4 So. 752; Houston v. Farris, 71 Ala. 570; McMillan v. Otis, 74 Ala. 560; Knox v. Easton, 38 Ala. 345; Edwards v. L. & N. R. Co., 202 Ala. 463, 80 So. 847. Having attorned to the plaintiffs, the tenant as defendant is estopped to deny or question the title or right of a purchaser to whom he had attorned to maintain unlawful detainer after that attornment. Hill v. Harris, 179 Ala. 614, 619, 60 So. 917; Code, § 4731. There is no uncertainty of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phillips v. Sipsey Coal Mining Co.
... ... that purchased of respondent Phillips. The rules for ... construction of contracts are well understood and need not be ... repeated. Greenwood v. Bennett, 208 Ala. 680, 684, ... 95 So. 159; Denson v. Caddell, 201 Ala. 194, 77 So ... In the ... light of the acquiescence of ... ...
- Alabama Power Co. v. Stogner
-
Bowdoin Square, LLC v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc.
...has stated: "A lease must be construed most strongly against the lessor and liberally in favor of the lessee." Greenwood v. Bennett, 208 Ala. 680, 684, 95 So. 159, 163 (1923). See also People's Bank & Trust Co. v. Tissier Hardware Co., 154 Ala. 103, 45 So. 624 (1907); Marcrum v. Embry, 291 ......
-
Irwin v. Baggett
... ... and, if the language is not clear, the circumstances ... attending its execution and the subsequent acts of the ... parties. Greenwood et al. v. Bennett, 208 Ala. 680, ... 95 So. 159. If not contrary to law, this intention, when so ... ascertained, is to be given application; and, ... ...