Proctor v. Keith
| Decision Date | 29 September 1851 |
| Citation | 51 Ky. 252 |
| Parties | Proctor <I>vs.</I> Keith. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
KEITH leased to Proctor for the term of five years a tract of land on the Ohio River containing five hundred acres, at an annual rent of seven hundred dollars, commencing on the 10th day of March, 1847. The written agreement of the parties contained the following stipulation, viz: "The said Proctor agrees to pay said Keith for the annual rent of said farm seven hundred dollars, payable on the 10th March, each year, and if said sum is not paid by him on that day or within ninety days thereafter, or secured to be paid with good and sufficient security, the said lessee hereby agrees and binds himself to surrender possession of said farm, and all its buildings and appurtenances unto the said John A. Keith, or his legal representatives, at the expiration of said ninety days, to-wit: on the 10th day of June, succeeding said failure to pay, and this they agree and bind themselves to do without notice of any kind, written or verbal."
In December, 1847, while Proctor was in possession of the farm under said lease, the fence inclosing it, on the side next the river, was washed away by a freshet that occurred at that time. Proctor alleges that Keith shortly afterward agreed, that if he would continue to occupy the premises under the lease, the latter would furnish the rails and have the line of fence rebuilt that had been washed away, and that confiding in this agreement, he proceeded to pitch and cultivate a crop, which was in a great measure destroyed; Keith having failed to comply with his agreement.
For the injury sustained in the destruction of his growing crop, Proctor brought this action on the case against Keith, on the agreement alleged to have been made by him, to rebuild the line of fence next the river. The Court instructed the jury to find for the defendant, and a verdict having been given in accordance with that instruction, and a judgment thereon rendered for the defendant, the plaintiff has prosecuted a writ of error for its reversal.
The point upon which the case turns, is, whether, if such a promise was made by the lessor as is alleged, it was obligatory upon him, or was invalid, and not enforcible for the want of a sufficient consideration to sustain it.
A solution of this question depends upon the right of the lessee to have abandoned the premises. If he had this...
To continue reading
Request your trial