Hanson v. Hanson Hardware Co.

• Decision Date: 01 April 1912
• Docket Number: 81912
• Citation: 135 N.W. 766,23 N.D. 169
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

135 N.W. 766

23 N.D. 169

HANSON
v.
HANSON HARDWARE COMPANY. HANSON, Intervener

No. 81912

Supreme Court of North Dakota

April 1, 1912

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the District Court for Sargent County, Frank P. Allen, J., in defendant's favor in an action of forcible detainer to recover possession of certain premises.

Affirmed.

George W. Freerks and Purcell & Divet, for appellant.

Parol evidence not admissible to vary the written lease. Culver v. Wilkinson, 145 U.S. 205, 36 L.Ed. 676, 12 S.Ct. 832; Hazelton Tripod-Boiler Co. v. Citizens' Street R. Co. 72 F. 325; Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370, 22 L.R.A.(N.S.) 492, 116 N.W. 927; National Gas-light & Fuel Co. v. Bixby, 48 Minn. 323, 51 N.W. 217; Wigmore, Ev. 2433; Indianapolis Union R. Co. v. Houlihan, 157 Ind. 494, 54 L.R.A. 787, 60 N.E. 943; Trice v. Yoeman, 60 Kan. 742, 57 P. 955; 17 Cyc. 622; Merchants' State Bank v. Ruettell, 12 N.D. 519, 97 N.W. 853; Hume Bros. v. Taylor, 63 Ill. 43; Chapman v. McGrew, 20 Ill. 101; Loach v. Farnum, 90 Ill. 368; Collamer v. Farington, 15 N.Y.S. 452; Delamater v. Bush, 63 Barb. 168; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Mahon, 13 N.D. 516, 101 N.W. 903; Hutchinson v. Cleary, 3 N.D. 270, 55 N.W. 729; Plano Mfg. Co. v. Root, 3 N.D. 165, 54 N.W. 924; Grand Forks Lumber Co. v. Tourtelot, 7 N.D. 587, 75 N.W. 901.

There can be no waiver unless at the time of its exercise the right or privilege waived was in existence. San Barnadino Invest. Co. v. Merrill, 108 Cal. 490, 41 P. 487; United Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 47 L.R.A. 450, 27 C. C. A. 42, 53 U. S. App. 517, 82 F. 406; Kennedy v. Roberts, 105 Iowa 521, 75 N.W. 363; Pabst Brewing Co. v. Milwaukee, 126 Wis. 110, 105 N.W. 563; Schillinger Bros. v. Bosch-Ryan Grain Co. Iowa, , 116 N.W. 133.

Where lease is terminated by force of its own provisions for default in the payment of rent, and a three days' notice to quit is given, notice need not give the lessee notice to pay up the rent in arrear in the three days, and a subsequent tender of rent could not operate to cure the default, or to reinstate the lease. 9 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 67; Roussel v. Kelly, 41 Cal. 360; Silva v. Campbell, 84 Cal. 420, 24 P. 316; Jackson v. Allen, 3 Cow. 220; Martin v. Morgan, 87 Cal. 203, 22 Am. St. Rep. 242, 25 P. 350; Fargusson v. Talcott, 7 N.D. 183, 73 N.W. 207; Boyum v. Johnson, 8 N.D. 306, 79 N.W. 149; Pier v. Lee, 14 S.D. 600, 86 N.W. 642; Page v. Ross, 11 N.D. 458, 92 N.W. 822; Bucholz v. Leadbetter, 11 N.D. 473, 92 N.W. 833; Kicks v. State Bank, 12 N.D. 576, 98 N.W. 408; Timmins v. Russell, 13 N.D. 487, 99 N.W. 48; and Cughan v. Larson, 13 N.D. 373, 100 N.W. 1088; Keator v. Ferguson, 20 S.D. 473, 129 Am. St. Rep. 947, 107 N.W. 678; West Shore R. Co. v. Wenner, 70 N.J.L. 233, 103 Am. St. Rep. 801, 57 A. 408, 1 Ann. Cas. 790; 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 118; Burlington & M. River R. Co. v. Boestler, 15 Iowa 555; Gray v. Blanchard, 8 Pick. 284; First Nat. Bank v. Maxwell, 123 Cal. 360, 69 Am. St. Rep. 64, 55 P. 980; Balfour v. Parkinson, 84 F. 855; Armstrong v. Agricultural Ins. Co. 130 N.Y. 560, 29 N.E. 991; Ripley v. Etna Ins. Co. 30 N.Y. 138, 86 Am. Dec. 362; Decker v. Sexton, 19 Misc. 59, 43 N.Y.S. 167.

O. S. Sem and Jos. G. Forbes, for respondents.

Oral evidence admissible to show the relation of the parties to the lease. Mechem, Agency 442; Thompson v. Goble, 15 Ore. 631, 16 P. 713; Duffield v. Hue, 129 Pa. 94, 18 A. 566, 17 Mor. Min. Rep. 253; United States Fidelity & G. Co. v. Siegmann, 87 Minn. 175, 91 N.W. 473; Curran v. Holland, 141 Cal. 437, 75 P. 46; Southern P. Co. v. Van Schmidt Dredge Co. 118 Cal. 368, 50 P. 650; Keidan v. Winegar, 95 Mich. 430, 54 N.W. 901; Williams v. Macatte, 86 Va. 681, 10 S.E. 1061; Carraher v. Mulligan, 4 Silv. S.Ct. 550, 8 N.Y.S. 42; Kaufman v. Barbour, 98 Minn. 158, 107 N.W. 1128; Small v. Elliot, 12 S.D. 570, 76 Am. St. Rep. 630, 82 N.W. 92.

Appellant is estopped to insist upon the harsh rule of forfeiture, because he waived his right to do so by his own conduct and express agreement. 18 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 371; Reiger v. Turley, 151 Iowa 491, 131 N.W. 866; Westmoreland & C. Natural Gas Co. v. DeWitt, 130 Pa. 235, 5 L.R.A. 731, 18 A. 724; Duffield v. Hue, 129 Pa. 94, 18 A. 566, 17 Mor. Min. Rep. 253; Morrison v. Smith, 90 Md. 76, 44 A. 1031; 29 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1103, 1104; 1 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 452; 24 Cyc. 1335; Lucas v. Brooks, 18 Wall. 436, 21 L.Ed. 779; Prindle v. Anderson, 19 Wend. 391; Kenny v. Seu Si Lun, 101 Minn. 253, 11 L.R.A.(N.S.) 831, 112 N.W. 220; Johnson v. Electric Park Amusement Co. 150 Iowa 717, 130 N.W. 807; M. Levy & Son v. Steigaman, Iowa , 104 N.W. 372; Barton v. Koon, 7 S.D. 7, 104 N.W. 521; Shaw v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. Iowa , 105 N.W. 120; Wm. Barie Dry Goods Co. v. Casler, 138 Mich. 172, 101 N.W. 215; New England Mort. Secur. Co. v. Great Western Elevator Co. 6 N.D. 407, 71 N.W. 130; Stanford v. McGill, 6 N.D. 536, 38 L.R.A. 760, 72 N.W. 938; First M. E. Church v. Fadden, 8 N.D. 162, 77 N.W. 615; Band of Park River v. Norton, 12 N.D. 497, 97 N.W. 860; Dakota Hot Springs v. Young, 9 S.D. 577, 70 N.W. 842; Cole v. Johnson, 120 Iowa 667, 94 N.W. 1113; Cannon v. Wilber, 30 Neb. 777, 47 N.W. 85; Hill v. Carter, 101 Mich. 158, 59 N.W. 413; 18 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 379, 381; Wasser v. Western Land Securities Co. 97 Minn. 460, 107 N.W. 160; Wood, C. & Co. v. Seurich, 5 Cal.App. 252, 90 P. 51; American Copying Co. v. Lehmann, 6 Cal.App. 1, 91 P. 414; Barnes v. Clement, 12 S.D. 270, 81 N.W. 301; Little Rock Granite Co. v. Shall, 59 Ark. 405, 27 S.W. 562; 2 Story Eq. Jur. §§ 1321, 1322; 24 Cyc. 1364; 18 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 389.

OPINION

[23 N.D. 172] FISK, J.

On February 17, 1909, plaintiff and appellant, the owner of the premises in controversy, entered into a written contract with defendant and respondent, Hanson Hardware Company, whereby he leased to the latter such premises for the term of two years at the agreed rental of $ 65 per month, payable on the first day of each month in advance. Such written lease contained the following stipulations material to this controversy:

"And it is hereby expressly understood, declared, and agreed, by and between the parties hereto, that this lease is made, and the continuance of the term hereby demised is dependent upon the following conditions, viz.: That the rent hereby reserved shall be paid by or on the day when the same shall become due by the terms thereof; . . . that time is deemed and taken to be as the very essence of this lease and of all and each of the covenants and conditions herein, and all courts shall so construe the same, and that unless all and each of the terms, covenants, and conditions herein shall in all respects be complied with by the party of the second part, at the respective times and in the manner herein specified and declared, the term herein demised, at the option of the said party of the first part, shall cease and terminate; and the party of the first part, his heirs, executors, or assigns shall have the full right to re-enter upon and occupy the premises hereby leased, and the party of the second part shall lose and be debarred from all right, remedies, or action, either in law or in equity, upon and under this instrument; and no waiver of time or performance shall be implied or alleged to excuse a failure, unless such waiver shall be in writing, signed by the party of the first part, or his attorney, lawfully authorized. And if at any time said term shall end at the election of said party of the first part, . . . the said party of the second part hereby covenants, promises, and agrees to surrender and deliver up said premises and property peaceably to said party of the first part . . . immediately upon such termination of said term aforesaid . . . ; and if he shall remain in possession of the same after the termination of this lease, in any of the ways above named, he shall be deemed guilty of a forcible detainer of said premises, under the statute; and in order to enforce a forfeiture of his lease for nonpayment [23 N.D...