Nakdimen v. Atkinson Improvement Co.
Decision Date | 04 July 1921 |
Docket Number | 83 |
Citation | 233 S.W. 694,149 Ark. 448 |
Parties | NAKDIMEN v. ATKINSON IMPROVEMENT COMPANY |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sebastian Chancery Court, Fort Smith District; J. V Bourland, Chancellor; reversed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
This is a suit in equity by appellee against appellants to enforce the specific performance of a renewal covenant in a lease and also to compel the defendants to submit to an arbitration to fix the rent as provided in the covenant of renewal.
The lease is in writing and is as follows:
"State of Arkansas,
County of Sebastian, ss.
The lease was duly acknowledged and recorded. Subsequent to the execution of the contract, Nakdimen conveyed a part of his property to the other appellants, and for this reason they were, also, made defendants in the chancery court.
Under the terms of the lease, it extended over a period of ten years from the completion of the building by Nakdimen. Appellee claims that the lease contained a covenant for its perpetual renewal on a rental to be fixed by a board of arbitrators as provided in the lease.
A short time prior to the expiration of the first term for ten years, appellee made demand upon appellants to fix the rental for the next term by a board of arbitrators, as provided in the lease contract. Appellants refused to comply with this clause of the contract and claimed that the lease expired by its own terms at the end of the ten years, which was on the 10th of September, 1920.
Other facts will be stated under appropriate headings in the opinion.
The chancellor found that the lease copied above was a continuous contract and remained in force during the life of the buildings specified in it; that appellee was entitled to compensation from appellants in the nature of an annuity; that the lease calls for the rental value for the use of the elevator, stairway, and lobby to be fixed by a board of arbitrators; that appellants, upon being notified of appellee's desire to arbitrate under the contract, refused to appoint an appraiser or arbitrator; that the reasonable rental value for a period of five years is $ 300 per year, payable in monthly installments of $ 25; that the rental value at $ 25 may be increased on application of appellee for any month during said five-year period by showing more than a designated number of persons occupying the Nakdimen building going in and out of the building; that, owing to the fact that the Nakdimen building had become vacant for a period of three months next ensuing, appellants may abate the monthly payment of $ 25 as rent, by showing the actual number of persons going in or out of the building are less than a designated number; that the court retained jurisdiction of the cause in regard to the rent in order to carry out its decree by appropriate supplemental orders; that the rent fixed by the court for the use of the stairway and lobby expired five years from September 10, 1920; that at the expiration of that period the arbitration clause of the contract will again be in force and then on the failure of either party to select an arbitrator the other may apply to the court to fix the rental.
A decree was entered of record in accordance with the finding of the chancellor. Appellants, who were defendant in the chancery court, have duly prosecuted an appeal from that part of the decree holding that the lease did not expire at the end of ten years. Appellee has been granted a cross-appeal from that part of the decree fixing the rental value of the premises.
Decree reversed and cause remanded.
Warner, Hardin & Warner, and James B. McDonough, for appellants.
The lease or contract terminated at the end of ten years. In construing a contract the court should construe it according to the spirit and intention of the parties. 1 Ark. 325. Where ambiguous, it should be construed against the grantor. 1 Ark. 325; 2 Ark. 491. The law looks to the substance and not to the form of the transaction. 52 Ark. 30. The contract must be construed as a whole. 94 Ark. 461; 53 Ark. 58. In construing a contract the court should ascertain the intention of the parties. 106 Ark. 400; 113 Ark. 174. The situation and relation of the parties will be considered. 105 Ark. 421. The lease might have been extended by the conduct of the parties. 61 Ark. 377; 71 Ark. 251. If the meaning of the contract is doubtful, the circumstances and surroundings and transactions become admissible. 52 Ark. 95; 46 Ark. 122; 55 Ark. 18; 90 Ark. 272; 97 Ark. 522; 90 Ark. 504.
Courts will not construe a contract as perpetual unless they are compelled to do so. Where a contract provides its duration,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lattimore v. Fisher's Food Shoppe, Inc.
...§ 6.62 (1984). The foregoing rules reflect the fact that the law is biased against perpetuities. E.g. Nakdimen v. Atkinson Improvement Co., 149 Ark. 448, 233 S.W. 694 (1921); Hallock v. Kintzler, 142 Ohio St. 287, 51 N.E.2d 905 (1943). Furthermore, by requiring that a perpetual lease or a r......
-
Lawson v. West Va. Newspaper Pub. Co
...77 P. 388; Syms v. Mayor, etc., of New York, 105 N.Y. 153, 11 N.E. 369; Cunningham v. Pattee, 99 Mass. 248; Nakdimen v. Atkinson Imp. Co., 149 Ark. 448, 233 S.W. 694. The same rule applies to covenants for a continuance or extension of a lease. "It is the rule that a provision in a lease in......
-
Troutman Oil Co. v. Lone
...to be agreed upon is void for uncertainty." Ferrill v. Collins, 225 Ark. 247, 281S.W.2d 939 (1955). However, in Nakdimen v. Atkinson Imp. Co., 149 Ark. 448, 233 S.W. 694 (1921), the Court upheld an option which did not provide for the amount of the rental, but where the parties had agreed t......
-
Lawson v. West Virginia Newspaper Pub. Co.
... ... 153, 11 ... N.E. 369; Cunningham v. Pattee, 99 Mass. 248; ... Nakdimen v. Atkinson Imp. Co., 149 Ark. 448, 233 ... S.W. 694. The same rule applies to covenants for a ... ...