Robinson Seed & Plant Co. v. Hexter & Kramer
| Citation | 167 S.W. 749 |
| Decision Date | 23 May 1914 |
| Docket Number | (No. 7150.) |
| Parties | ROBINSON SEED & PLANT CO. v. HEXTER & KRAMER. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Action by Hexter & Kramer against the Robinson Seed & Plant Company. There was a judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
Short & Feild, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error. Thompson, Knight, Baker & Harris, of Dallas, for defendant in error.
Defendants in error sued plaintiffs in error for a sum of money alleged to be the amount due upon a lease of certain premises in the city of Dallas, entered into between plaintiffs in error and Sockwell and Beall, who, before the rents accrued, sold the premises and assigned the lease to defendants in error, and an item of expense for repairs incurred on behalf of plaintiffs in error, and which premises plaintiffs in error vacated before the expiration of the term.
The effect of plaintiffs in error's answer was to admit the lease of the premises and the failure to pay the rent for the unexpired term, but a denial of liability therefor on the ground that, after they ceased occupying the premises, defendants in error agreed that plaintiffs in error might sublet the premises to another satisfactory to defendants in error, and that such a tenant was secured; and, further, that plaintiffs in error surrendered the premises for the unexpired term, and defendants in error accepted the surrender and took possession of the premises, and for that reason also were not entitled to recover.
There was a trial before jury; but at the conclusion of the testimony the court instructed a verdict for defendants in error, which was returned by the jury, and, from the judgment entered upon said verdict, this appeal is taken.
We deduce from the evidence the following essential and undisputed facts: Plaintiffs in error rented the premises for a period of five years, beginning November 1, 1906, for the gross sum of $13,200. The rental was payable in installments of $200 per month for three years, or until November 1, 1909. For the remaining two years it was to be paid in installments of $250 per month. Plaintiffs in error occupied the premises under the lease until the latter part of June, 1910, when they ceased business and vacated the premises. By the terms of the lease plaintiffs in error did not have the right to sublet the premises; but when they ceased business they asked and received permission from defendants in error, who, subsequent to the execution of the lease, purchased the property and held the lease by assignment, to sublet the premises for the unexpired term of the lease to tenants satisfactory to defendants in error, with the reservation by defendants in error at all times that plaintiffs in error were to be primarily liable for the rental of the premises under the exact terms of the lease. The plaintiffs in error did not secure tenants who would accept the premises for the unexpired portion of the lease, but did secure two tenants, either one of whom would have occupied the premises for a period of three years, including the unexpired portion of the lease, at a rental of $250 per month for the full period of time. Defendants in error were willing for such tenants to occupy the building at $250 per month for the unexpired portion of the lease, but demanded a greater rental after that time, which the prospective tenants declined to pay. Matters standing thus, and the rental for August, 1910, having been paid, plaintiffs in error declined in writing to pay any further rent, and abandoned the premises and repudiated the lease, assigning as a reason defendants in error's refusal to accept either of the prospective tenants. Subsequently defendants in error, in the exercise of the utmost diligence, leased the premises for a part of the unexpired portion thereof, crediting plaintiffs in error with the full amount collected, after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Austin Hill Country Realty, Inc. v. Palisades Plaza, Inc.
...See John Church Co. v. Martinez, 204 S.W. 486, 489 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1918, writ ref'd); Robinson Seed & Plant Co. v. Hexter & Kramer, 167 S.W. 749, 751 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1914, writ ref'd). Thus, a landlord currently may be subject to a mitigation requirement depending upon the landl......
-
Stewart v. Basey
...these circumstances appellants could resume possession and relet the premises. Barret v. Heartfield, supra; Robinson Seed & Plant Co. v. Hexter & Kramer, Tex.Civ.App., 167 S.W. 749, Er. Ref.; 27 Tex.Jur., p. 314, Sec. The evidence conclusively shows that appellee, without the consent of app......
-
White v. Watkins
...230 S.W.2d 511, 512; Racke v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n., 17 Tex.Civ.App. 167, 42 S.W. 774; Robinson Seed & Plaint Co. v. Hexter & Kramer (Tex.Civ.App., 1914) 167 S.W. 749, 751, writ Even where the lease contract, as here, authorizes the landlord to relet for the remainder of the term, h......
-
Thomas v. Morrison
...A.L.R. 439; Annotation, 85 L.Ed. 352. See Employment Advisors, Inc. v. Sparks, Tex., 368 S.W.2d 199; Robinson Seed & Plant Co. v. Hexter & Kramer (Tex.Civ.App.1914), 167 S.W. 749, 751.' The same rule is applied in Evons v. Winkler, 388 S.W.2d 265 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1965, writ ref......