Jenkins v. Rose's 5, 10 And 25¢ Stores Inc
Decision Date | 25 May 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 377.,377. |
Citation | 213 N.C. 606,197 S.E. 174 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | JENKINS et al. v. ROSE'S 5, 10 AND 25¢ STORES, Inc. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Iredell County; J. A. Rousseau, Judge.
Action by F. L. Jenkins and others against Rose's 5, 10 and 250 Stores, Inc., to recover a balance allegedly due on a rental contract for the year 1936. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Perry & Kittrell, of Henderson, and Lane & Sowers, of Statesville, for appellant.
Scott & Collier, of Statesville, for appellees.
This is an action to recover a balance alleged to be due on a rental contract for the year 1936. The plaintiffs are the owners of a certain storehouse in the City of Statesville which they leased to the defendant, under a written lease, for the year 1933. The lease was renewed for the years 1934, 1935 and 1936. The rents for the years 1933, 1934 and 1935 have been paid and received, and there is no controversy as to them. $2400.00 has been paid and received, without prejudice to other rights, for the year 1936. The plaintiffs allege and contend that there is still due them the sum of $1248.18 on rent for the year 1936. The defendant alleges and contends that the $2400.00 paid and received was a full settlement of the rent due for the year 1936.
The portion of the lease germane to this controversy reads:
The defendant retained the premises under this lease during the years 1933, 1934, 1935 and 1936, and paid to the plaintiffs rents for said years in the sums of $3126.88, $3609.07, $3648.18 and $2400.00, respectively. During the year 1936 the defendant did not operate any store or business in the demised premises, but conducted its business in another location in Statesville.
The difference in the amount of the rent paid and received for the years 1933, 1934 and 1935 and $2400.00 represents 5% of gross sales in excess of $48,000.00...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
William Berland Realty Co. v. Hahne & Co.
...cases cited by the plaintiff are reviewed and distinguished); Ridgefield Investors, Inc. v. Mae Ellen, Inc., supra; Jenkins v. Rose, 213 N.C. 606, 197 S.E. 174 (Sup.Ct.1938); Palm v. Mortgage Investment Co. of El Paso, supra; Freeport Sulphur Co. v. American Sulphur R. Co., It is accordingl......
-
Percoff v. Solomon
...which support our views wherein percentage leases were involved are hereafter cited: Jenkins v. Rose's 5, 10 and 25cents Stores, 213 N.C. 606, 197 S.E. 174; Cousins Inv. Co. v. Hastings Clothing Co., supra; Palm v. Mortgage Investment Co., supra; Masciotra v. Harlow, 105 Cal.App.2d 376, 233......
-
Tuttle v. W. T. Grant Co.
...of a bonus. See: Selber Bros. Inc. v. Newstadt's Shoe Stores, 194 La. 654, 194 So. 579; Jenkins v. Rose's 5, 10 and 25cents Stores, Inc., 213 N.C. 606, 197 S.E. 174. The lease as a whole cannot be said to be without meaning absent a provision insuring plaintiff's right to a bonus. Having re......
-
Stern v. Dunlap Company, 5158.
...lease with resulting wrongful invasion of the rights of the appellants in respect to rental. Jenkins v. Rose's, 5, 10 and 25¢ Stores, 213 N.C. 606, 197 S.E. 174; Percoff v. Solomon, 259 Ala. 482, 67 So.2d 31, 38 A.L.R. 2d 1100; Cousins Investment Co. v. Hastings Clothing Co., 45 Cal.App.2d ......