Republic Inv. Co. v. Naches Hotel Co.
| Decision Date | 27 April 1937 |
| Docket Number | 26536. |
| Citation | 67 P.2d 858,190 Wash. 176 |
| Parties | REPUBLIC INV. CO. v. NACHES HOTEL CO. et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Yakima County; A. W. Hawkins, Judge.
Action by the Republic Investment Company against the Naches Hotel Company and the Yakima Amusement Company. From a decree in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants appeal.
Cause remanded with directions to modify decree.
Cheney & Hutcheson and Walter J. Robinson, Jr. all of Yakima, and Allen & Wilkins, of Seattle, for appellants.
Rigg Brown & Halverson, of Yakima, for respondent.
Prior to January 25, 1930, plaintiff was the owner of lots 1 to 6 inclusive, in block 91, of the town of North Yakima. The lots, fronting on Yakima avenue, are contiguous, lot 1 being at the corner of that street and Fourth street. The plaintiff deeded lots 1 to 4, inclusive, to J. G. von Herberg, who in turn conveyed them to defendant Naches Hotel Company.
July 30, 1930, plaintiff leased lots 5 and 6 to Naches Hotel Company for a term of twenty-five years. There was then a two-story building on the leased premises. It was expressly stipulated in the lease that the major portion of the demised premises should be used as an integral part of a hotel building which the lessee proposed to erect on lots 1 to 4, inclusive. The rent reserved was payable semiannually. Under the terms of the lease, the lessee was expressly given the right to demolish the old building, in whole or in part, and to erect in its place such other structure as should be an integral part of the hotel building. In such case, however, the lessee was obligated to diligently prosecute construction of the building until it was completed.
Pursuant to its program, the hotel company commenced construction of a hotel building on lots 1 to 4, inclusive. The plans contemplated the erection, as an integral part of the building, of an ell, covering an area of 25.36 by 33.85 feet on the rear end of lot 5. This necessitated the partial demolition, at least, of the building then situated on lots 5 and 6. Owing to financial difficulties, the hotel company was unable to carry out the construction of the building beyond the erection of the concrete framework.
To liquidate various charges, the hotel company borrowed a substantial sum of money from the defendant Yakima Amusement Company. To secure this loan, a mortgage was executed to the latter, covering lots 1 to 4, inclusive. This mortgage was subsequently foreclosed, and the property bid in by the mortgagee at sheriff's sale. The hotel company failed to redeem, and the amusement company received a deed from the sheriff, and has since been, at all times with which we are concerned, the owner of lots 1 to 4, inclusive.
The hotel company failed to pay the semiannual installment of rent falling due, under the terms of the lease, on January 15, 1935. Thereafter, plaintiff brought this action, praying for relief as follows: (1) To recover the installment of rent; (2) to recover damages for the destruction of the building, and to cancel the lease because of failure to complete construction of the hotel building; (3) for a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to remove that portion of the concrete framework located on lot 5. The cause was tried to the court, which entered judgment in favor of plaintiff against the hotel company for the rent due, for damages on account of the destruction of the old building, and for cancellation of the lease. Injunctive relief was granted against both defendants, requiring them to remove so much of the concrete framework of the hotel building as stands on lot five. The defendants have appealed.
That respondent was entitled to recover the past-due rent, there can be no doubt. Whether it was entitled, in this action, to a cancellation of the lease and damages for the destruction of the old building depends wholly upon the terms of the lease. Likewise, whether it is entitled to a mandatory injunction, of the character granted, must be determined by the terms of that instrument.
The last problem may be summarily disposed of. Everything that the hotel company did with respect to the demolition of the old building and the erection of a portion of the hotel building on the demised premises was, as we have seen, done pursuant to the specific provisions of the lease. A lessee, or even a licensee, acting within the rights granted by the lease or license, is not required to remove structures placed upon the demised premises. Stevens v. Stevens, 11 Metc. (52 Mass.) 251, 45 Am.Dec. 203; Hodgkins v. Farrington, 150 Mass. 19, 22 N.E. 73, 5 L.R.A. 209, 15 Am.St.Rep. 168; Carter v. Page, 26 N.C. 424; Freeman v. Headley, 32 N.J. Law, 225. See, also, Schade Brewing Co. v. Falls City Pickle Works, 55 Wash. 202, 104 P. 175. Of course, the lessor would have a cause of action for damages occasioned by the demolition of the old building and the failure of the lessee to carry to completion the construction of the hotel building. When the right of action accrues, however, is wholly dependent upon the terms of the lease. This lease contains the following provisions:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Silverstreak v. State Dept. of Labor
...phrase "`through transfer of stock ownership, sale of assets' ... `or otherwise'" in a statute (quoting Republic Inv. Co. v. Naches Hotel Co., 190 Wash. 176, 182, 67 P.2d 858 (1937))). WAC 296-127-018(2)(a) contains a phrase similar to the general words examined in McMurray: "or otherwise p......
-
Munro v. Swanson, No. 55811-1-I/2 (Wash. App. 2/20/2007)
...in the lease took precedence over the 10-day notice provision in the unlawful detainer statute); Republic Inv. Co. v. Naches Hotel Co., 190 Wash. 176, 180, 67 P.2d 858 (1937). The listed events of default are non-curable; they are discrete events. Unlike failure to comply with an ongoing ob......
-
Stockmen's Supply Co. v. Jenne
...forfeiture. There is good authority that the suit is not the equivalent of nor a substitute for notice, Republic Inv. Co. v. Naches Hotel Co., 190 Wash. 176, 67 P.2d 858 at page 860, but if it be contended the suit was notice of forfeiture, appellant Jenne had the time engendered by the sui......
-
McKenzie v. Western Greenbrier Bank
...Kan. 483, 227 P.2d 88, 23 A.L.R.2d 649; Perry v. J. L. Mott Iron Works Co., 207 Mass. 501, 93 N.E. 798; Republic Invest. Co. v. Naches Hotel Co. et al., 190 Wash. 176, 67 P.2d 858; Cass et al. v. Home Tobacco Warehouse Co., 311 Ky. 95, 223 S.W.2d 569. See Tinnerholm v. State, 15 Misc.2d 311......
-
§17.12 - Termination
...that could not possibly be corrected. Gray v. Gregory, 36 Wn.2d 416, 218 P.2d 307 (1950); see also Republic Inv. Co. v. Naches Hotel Co., 190 Wash. 176, 67 P.2d 858 (1937) (when lease allows landlord to terminate on 60 days' notice, the giving of the notice is a condition to maintaining an ......
-
Table of Cases
...4.3 Renfro v. Kaur, 156 Wn.App. 655, 235 P.3d 800, review denied, 170 Wn.2d 1006 (2010): 10.3(4) Republic Inv. Co. v. Naches Hotel Co., 190 Wash. 176, 67 P.2d 858 (1937): 17.12(2) Rhoades v. Barnes, 54 Wash. 145, 102 P. 884 (1909): 7.6(1)(b) Richards v. Redelsheimer, 36 Wash. 325, 78 P. 934......