Morris v. De Wolf
| Decision Date | 21 December 1895 |
| Citation | 33 S.W. 556 |
| Parties | MORRIS et al. v. DE WOLF. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Baylor county, W. R. McGill, Judge.
Action by Ida R. Morris and another against M. G. De Wolf for rent. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.
D. A. Holman, for appellants. Glasgow & Goss, for appellee.
July 14, 1893, appellee leased from appellants a hotel in the town of Seymour till the 1st day of May, 1895; paying $50 cash, and agreeing to pay $100 on the 1st day of each month thereafter, and also agreeing to keep a first-class hotel. The lease further provided: "On failure to do either, this contract shall cease and determine, and the party of the first part [lessors] shall have the right to re-enter and take possession of the same, which the said party of the second part hereby agrees, on such condition, to surrender." The lessee made default in the first deferred payment, and left the premises, whereupon the hotel furniture was distrained, and this suit brought for the first year's rent, less the $50 paid. The court gave judgment for one month's rent, but denied a recovery for the rest, upon the ground that under the contract the defendant had the right to refuse to pay the rent due on the 1st of any month, and terminate the lease, without being liable for rent thereafter to accrue. To this construction of the contract we cannot assent. Where a lease contract contains a proviso that on nonpayment of rent the term shall cease, the lessor, and not the lessee, has the elective right of determining it upon breach made. The principle that no man is permitted to take advantage of his own wrong prevents the lessee from doing so. For a collection of the elementary authorities, as well as an able review of the English and American cases on the subject, see the opinion of the supreme court of Pennsylvania in the case of Wills v. Gas Co., 18 Atl. 721. See, also, Brady v. Nagle (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S. W. 943,— quite in point. Therefore, upon the court's findings of fact, together with our conclusion from the statement of facts that the lessors derived no revenue from the hotel during the period for which rents were claimed, the judgment is reversed, and here rendered for appellants for the $1,150 sued for, with foreclosure of the landlord's lien on the property set out in the judgment so reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Equitable Life Assur. Society v. Ellis
...Ky. 391, 124 S. W. 376; Morrison v. Insurance Co., 69 Tex. 363, 6 S. W. 605, 5 Am. St. Rep. 63; Brady v. Nagle, 29 S. W. 943; Morris v. De Wolf, 33 S. W. 556. And "the rule is now established that a waiver of the forfeiture of a policy in the absence of any agreement to that effect results ......
-
Vincent v. Kaser Const. Co.
...Georgia Fertilizer Co., 144 Tenn. 32, 229 S.W. 153; Wills v. Manufacturers' Natural Gas Co., 130 Pa. 222, 18 A. 721; Morris v. De Wolf, 11 Tex.Civ.App. 701, 33 S.W. 556; Chicago Daily News Pub. Co. v. Joyce-Watkins Co., Ill.App., 13 N.E.2d 117; Nelson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 8 Cir., 2......
- Savage v. State
-
Collier v. Wages
...same themselves since they were vacated by the defendant, although they have held the key thereof all that time. In Morris v. De Wolf, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 701, 33 S. W. 556, the following was "Where a lease contract contains a proviso that on nonpayment of rent, the term shall cease, the less......