Jones v. Hoard
| Decision Date | 14 April 1894 |
| Citation | 26 S.W. 193 |
| Parties | JONES v. HOARD.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Action by Jackson Hoard against George E. Jones. From the decree both parties appeal. Reversed.
W. G. Whipple, for plaintiff. Ratcliffe & Fletcher, for defendant.
This action was brought in the Pulaski chancery court, by Jackson Hoard against George E. Jones, to cancel a lease by which Hoard demised to Jones a certain town lot in the city of Little Rock for three years from the 1st day of May, 1888, at the annual rent of $24, payable quarterly; and to restrain the lessee from erecting costly improvements on the demised premises.
The lease was executed in duplicate, and each party retained a counterpart. By the terms of it the lessee was permitted to build five fences and dig a well on the lot, and the lessor agreed that one-half of the rent should be appropriated to the payment of the expense of building the fences until it was paid in full. The lessor was to pay all taxes and assessments on the lot and improvements, and at the end of the term was to pay for the improvements at their value at that time, or continue the lease at the same rate until he should pay for them.
During the term of the lease, Jones, the lessee, erected two small frame houses on the lot, and was erecting a third, of brick, when this action was instituted.
The main contention in this action grows out of the clause, "the lessee is allowed to build three houses." This clause appears in the counterpart of the lease which was retained by Jones, but is not in the one held by Hoard. As originally written, nothing was said in the lease about houses. Hoard insists that the clause was inserted after the execution of the lease, without his consent or knowledge; and Jones says it was inserted by him by permission of Hoard, and that the lease was thereafter acknowledged before a justice of the peace by both parties.
As to the first two houses erected by Jones, there is no controversy. The parties agree that they were built by Jones under an agreement that Hoard would pay the value of the same to Jones when the possession of the lot was delivered according to the terms of the lease, and that the lease should continue in force, at the annual rent of $24, until such payment should be made. As to the third house Hoard says that he protested against the erection of it at the time Jones commenced to build it, but Jones insists that plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial