Haycock v. Johnston
| Decision Date | 01 August 1900 |
| Docket Number | 12,160 - (117) |
| Parties | JOHN E. HAYCOCK v. ALFRED D. S. JOHNSTON [1] |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $312.50 for rent. The case was tried before Brill, J., who directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the amount demanded. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Description in Lease -- Exclusion of Parol Evidence of Meaning.
A lease of real property containing the following description of the rented property: -- is considered, and it is held, that such description is not ambiguous, and that parol evidence tending to enlarge and extend it was properly excluded as incompetent by the trial court.
Description in Lease -- Constructive Eviction.
It appears that plaintiff leased to defendant the premises above described for the term of five years. This action was brought to recover rent due under the terms of the lease. Defendant interposed the defense that at the time the lease was executed, and as a part of that transaction, plaintiff specially agreed, by parol, not to erect a new dwelling within twenty-four feet of the rented building; that plaintiff violated such special agreement, erected a new building within fourteen feet, and thereby evicted defendant from a portion of the leased premises. Held, that evidence tending to prove the alleged parol special agreement was incompetent, as tending to vary and contradict the terms of the written lease.
Evidence of Fraud.
Evidence examined and considered, and held insufficient to show that the lease was obtained by fraud.
Durment & Moore, for appellant.
C.D. & T.D. O'Brien, for respondent.
This action is one to recover an amount claimed to be due as and for the rent of a dwelling house leased by plaintiff to defendant. The court below directed a verdict for plaintiff and defendant appeals from an order denying a new trial.
The facts are as follows: On April 6, 1899, plaintiff was, and for some time prior thereto had been, the owner of a certain dwelling house situated upon land owned by him in the city of St. Paul, and on that day leased the same to defendant for the term of five years. Defendant took possession of the property and continued to occupy it until September, 1899 when he vacated the same for the reasons to be presently stated. He failed to pay the rent for the months of July, August, September, October, and November, and this action was brought to recover the same. The tract of land on which the dwelling stands extends a distance of ninety feet on Fairmount avenue, and the dwelling and barn, also included in the lease, stand on the westerly part of the tract. Immediately east of the house a driveway extends from the avenue to the rear of the premises, where the barn is located. All that portion of the tract of land east of the driveway was vacant and unoccupied at the time the lease was made. Before the execution of the lease, plaintiff informed defendant that he intended to erect another dwelling upon the unoccupied and vacant portion of the land; and in June following he caused the same to be erected, placing the same within fourteen feet of the one leased to defendant. It is the contention of defendant that plaintiff specially agreed not to construct or erect the new building nearer than twenty-four feet to the old one; that he violated this agreement, erected the building within fourteen feet, and thereby evicted defendant from a part of the leased premises, which violation of said agreement relieved defendant from liability for the payment of rent. He also contends that plaintiff never intended to carry out such agreement, but fraudulently represented that he would do so, and thereby induced defendant to lease the premises. For this alleged fraud, he asks for a cancellation of the lease.
The defendant's whole defense is embodied in this alleged special or collateral agreement as to the erection of the new building. The theory of his counsel that the lease is indefinite and uncertain as to the extent of the tract of land covered and intended to be covered thereby is so clearly erroneous as to require no extended notice. The description of the leased property, as contained in the writing, is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial