Peirce v. Grice

• Decision Date: 02 April 1896
• Citation: 92 Va. 763,24 S.E. 392
• Parties: PEIRCE . v. GRICE.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

24 S.E. 392

92 Va. 763

PEIRCE .

v.GRICE.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

April 2, 1896.

Landlord and Tenant—Trade Fixture—Holding Over—Tenancy from Tear to Year—Rent.

1. A lease provided that the lessee should erect a storehouse within six months, and should have a renewal for a second term, unless the lessor elected not to renew, in which case the lessor would pay for the building; and it appeared that the lessee was allowed to enter three months before the term began, in order to complete the building within the time stated. Held, that the building was part consideration for the lease and renewal, and did not become a trade fixture, removable at the end of the second term.

2. A lessee for years who erected a building under a lease requiring it, and providing for a renewal for a second term, and that, if the lessor elected not to give such renewal, he would pay for the building, is not chargeable for the use and occupation of such building, in addition to the rental fixed in the lease, for a period during which he held over after the expiration of the second term, since for such period he was a tenant from year to year, and, in the absence of a new agreement, was chargeable with rent only on terms fixed in the lease.

Error to hustings court of Portsmouth.

Action by J. Caldwell Peirce against H. H. Grice. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Burroughs & Bro., for plaintiff in error.

Watts & Hatton, for defendant in error.

BUCHANAN, J. By the lease of the 23d of September, 1867, the lessor had the option to continue the same for another term of 10 years, upon the same terms and conditions, or to pay the lessee the value of the buildings which, by the terms of the lease, he was required to erect upon the leased premises. At the expiration of the first 10 years, the lessor continued the lease by allowing the lessee to occupy the premises, and by demanding and receiving the same rent therefor. After the expiration of the second term of 10 years, the party claiming the premises, the plaintiff in this action, asserted a claim against the lessee's assignee, the defendant, for an additional sum of $300 annually, for a period of 5years, for the use and occupation of the buildings erected upon the leased premises.

For the recovery of that sum of $1,500, which the defendant refused to pay, this action was brought.

The defendant resists its payment on two grounds:

First. That the building, which was a two-story brick store, was erected by the lessee for the purpose of carrying on his business, and that he had the right to remove it as a trade fixture upon the expiration of his lease, and was therefore using and occupying his own, and not the plaintiff's, property.

This contention cannot be sustained. By the terms of the lease, the lessee bound himself to erect the storehouse within six months after the lease was made, and was allowed to enter upon the leased premises more than three months before his term commenced, in order that he might be able to complete it within the time fixed. The erection of the building was an inducement to, and a part of the...