Post v. Brown
| Decision Date | 25 February 1920 |
| Parties | POST v. BROWN. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Action between Ira S. Post and George K. Brown. From a decree for the latter, the former appeals. Affirmed.
Cantrell, Meacham & Moon, of Chattanooga, for Post.
Fred A. Noll, of Chattanooga, for Brown.
Complainant was the owner of a two-story brick building in the city of Chattanooga, and on August 12, 1916, leased the basement and first floor of the same to the defendant for a term of 12 years. No obligation for the repair of the demised premises by either of the parties was imposed by the terms of the lease, and the only reference to a destruction of the premises by fire is contained in the covenant of the lessee to return the same at the expiration of the term "in as good order as received ordinary wear and tear and natural decay excepted, unless destroyed by lightning or other natural cause, or fire not caused by his fault."
On January 31, 1918, a fire originating in the adjoining building destroyed the roof, and severely damaged the second story of the leased building. No damage was done by fire to that part of the building occupied by the defendant, but injury to the premises and contents resulted from the use of water. Settlement of his fire loss was effected by the complainant on February 26th, following the fire, and he immediately began the repair of the building, which was completed the latter part of April, the roof being finished by the 20th of March. The defendant assumed his tenancy terminated by the fire, and vacated the premises, delivering the keys to the building to the complainant on March 12th.
It appears that in 1905 the complainant leased the land on which the building is situated to a mercantile concern which, under the agreement entered into between them, was to erect thereon and upon adjacent property a single building which at the expiration of the lease was to be permanently divided or partitioned by a suitable wall, and the complainant was to become the owner of that part of the building resting within his property lines. This was accordingly done, and complainant's building went into the possession of the defendant under the lease here in question.
The present action is to recover for a year's rent, less that for the two months during which the building was undergoing repairs. Several questions are presented, but our attention is confined to that of the effect of the fire as terminating the lease. We are not concerned with the method of construction employed by the parties in carrying out their agreement to make two separate tenements of the original building; it is a matter in which the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gamble-Robinson Co. v. Buzzard
...Lieberthal v. Montgomery, 121 Mich. 369, 80 N. W. 115; Gralnick v. Magid, 292 Mo. 391, 238 S. W. 132, 28 A. L. R. 1530; Post v. Brown, 142 Tenn. 304, 218 S. W. 823; 1 Tiffany, Landlord and Tenant (1910), p. 1191; 2 Wood, Landlord and Tenant (2d Ed., 1888), p. 1130; 36 C. J. This rule of the......
-
Scharbauer v. Cobean
...69 Am.St.Rep. 436; Barry v. Herring, 153 Md. 457, 138 A. 266; Basketeria Stores v. Shelton, 199 N.C. 746, 155 S.E. 863; Post v. Brown, 142 Tenn. 304, 218 S.W. 823; Imperial Oil Marketing Co. v. Rogers, 181 Ark. 24, 24 S.W.2d 951. [3] In volume 2 of Underhill on Landlord and Tenant, § 792, p......
-
Norman v. Stark Grain & Elevator Co.
...25 Ark. 441; Ainsworth v. Ritt, 38 Cal. 89; Japhet v. Polemanakos, 160 S. W. 416; Beham v. Ghio, 75 Tex. 87, 12 S. W. 996; Post v. Brown, 142 Tenn. 304, 218 S. W. 823. Appellant's fourth assignment of error, "It was error to overrule appellant's motion for a new trial because the court erre......
-
Mason v. City of Nashville
...that Mason could not recover compensation for the destruction of his leasehold estate in the condemnation proceeding. Post v. Brown, 142 Tenn. 307, 218 S. W. 823, seems to support the proposition urged by the city that the destruction of the property leased by Mason, in the widening of the ......