Morris v. Pratt
| Decision Date | 13 February 1905 |
| Docket Number | 15,052 |
| Citation | 114 La. 98,38 So. 70 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | MORRIS v. PRATT |
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Thomas C. W Ellis, Judge.
Action by Henry Morris against George K. Pratt. Judgment for plaintiff for a less amount than claimed, and both parties appeal. Modified.
E. A O'Sullivan, for plaintiff.
James McConnell, Jr., for defendant.
Plaintiff brought this suit for $ 2,680.24 on a written statement, consisting of a number of items of property.
Plaintiff leased from defendant a building known as "Audubon Theatre," and while a lessee he placed furniture and other effects in the building. It appears that defendant, in resuming possession of his building, took possession of this property which was in the building, and which plaintiff claimed.
Plaintiff sought to have them returned. Defendant refused to return them on the ground that, under the terms of his lease, they were his, and not plaintiff's.
While in defendant's possession, his building known as the "Audobon Theatre" was burnt down and destroyed, and in the building were the articles taken possession of by him, as before mentioned.
Defendant answered plaintiff's demand by pleading the general denial. The judge of the district court condemned the defendant to pay the sum of $ 400 for the value of the property. From this judgment, plaintiff, Morris, appealed. Defendant, Pratt, also appealed, and each brought up a transcript of appeal. Before this court the appeals were heard as if in one case.
The lease in question was for the period of eight months. It ended on the 1st day of September, 1901, and the rental was $ 2,666 2/3, paid in advance. This was the only consideration, save that plaintiff bound himself to leave certain improvements on the building without charge; that is, the lessee consented to take the property in the condition in which it was, and not to require any repairs or renovation of any sort to any part of the building or appurtenances.
The lessor and lessee agreed that all improvements made by the lessee, and all "embellishments" and "reconstructions" of the property leased, were to remain in the building, without claim on the part of plaintiff for their value. The defendant assumed the risk of refusing to deliver property which belonged to plaintiff. The property was destroyed. Plaintiff did all he could to get possession, and failed because of the refusal of defendant to deliver them.
The next question which presents itself for determination is whether the property claimed by plaintiff falls within the terms of "embellishments" to, or "reconstructions" of, the Audubon building, and whether plaintiff is entitled to the value of the property. The word "property," as used in the contract of lease in question, evidently refers to and includes building and appurtenances leased. Here, however, there is no list or statement of the different items of property the defendant had in the building at the time he leased, and on which he claims "embellishments" were made, and to which he is therefore entitled. It was impossible to furnish such a list of property of defendant's property, as the articles had been destroyed by fire.
It remains, the defendant gave a broader and more comprehensive meaning to the words just quoted -- "embellishments and reconstruction" -- than did the plaintiff; hence the first ground of difference. The other issue is insufficiency of testimony, or want of corroboration, and the value of the property, which will be considered later.
The plaintiff made some few permanent repairs on part of the building, and added something by way of improvement to the appurtenances, for which he is not entitled to anything under the stipulations of the lease. We infer that he (plaintiff) must have retouched some of the theatrical implements -- at least, dusted them and put them up in proper places.
The articles claimed which did not enter into and form part of the property leased, separate therefrom, not attached to, and connected with defendants' property, are plaintiff's, in our view.
For instance, when it became necessary to improve the scenery to keep up the illusion of a landscape, or of any fancy scene of fairies, or to buy other palms, they did not become the property of the lessee. The bower in which Titania and Oberon met and cast furtive glances at each other could have been embellished without necessarily adding anything to lessor's property.
There is no question of good or bad faith here -- only a difference as to the meaning of a phrase or sentence. Such differences arise among the best of men.
Objection is urged by defendant to plaintiff's claim on the ground that the testimony of one witness who testified was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial