Tweedie v. P.E. Olson Hardware & Furniture Company

• Decision Date: 17 November 1905
• Docket Number: 14,534 - (95)
• Citation: 104 N.W. 895,96 Minn. 238
• Parties: WILLIAM TWEEDIE v. P.E. OLSON HARDWARE & FURNITURE COMPANY and Another
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

104 N.W. 895

96 Minn. 238

WILLIAM TWEEDIE v. P.E. OLSON HARDWARE & FURNITURE COMPANY and Another

Nos. 14,534 - (95)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

November 17, 1905

Action for unlawful detainer in the municipal court of Minneapolis. The case was tried before Waite, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of defendants. From a judgment entered pursuant to the verdict, plaintiff appealed. Reversed and new trial granted.

SYLLABUS

Option to Renew Lease.

The owner of certain premises leased the same to two tenants as joint lessees for a definite period, with the privilege of an additional term. Held, it was necessary for both tenants to exercise the option to continue the lease upon the expiration of the original term, but such intention might be expressed jointly or independently, or by remaining in possession; but when one of the joint tenants expressly informed the owner that he refused to extend the lease jointly with his cotenant, such cotenant having notice thereof, and the owner having acted upon such declaration, and within a reasonable time thereafter having brought an action for possession of the premises, he was entitled to recover, although the other tenant had served notice that he would remain under the terms of the lease.

C. D Gould, for appellant.

Gjertsen & Lund, for respondents.

OPINION

LEWIS, J.

Prior to May 7, 1902, the P.E. Olson Hardware & Furniture Company and Oscar L. Pherson, engaged in the furniture business, agreed to rent from plaintiff, a certain building in which to conduct their business, agreeing to divide the floor space between them, and P.E. Olson, president of the Olson Company, was authorized to secure a lease of the premises. He secured the lease for a period of three years from May 7, 1902, with the privilege of two years additional, at the annual rental of $1,500, to be paid monthly at the rate of $125, but caused the name of the P.E. Olson Hardware & Furniture Company only to appear as lessee, leaving out the name of Mr. Pherson. Pursuant to this lease the parties occupied the premises, and, some trouble having arisen between them as to their respecitive rights, the Olson Company brought an action against Pherson in the municipal court of Minneapolis to oust him from possession; and Pherson retaliated by commencing suit in the district court, and had the lease reformed so as to show that he was a joint lessee with the Olson Company, and enjoined the municipal court from interfering with his possession. After the determination of that action the parties continued to occupy the premises until the expiration of the three years, and for three days thereafter, when plaintiff brought this action in the municipal court at Minneapolis, in forcible entry and detainer, and the question at issue was whether or not defendants were unlawfully holding the premises. The court submitted the matter to the jury, and a verdict was returned in favor of the defendants.

At the trial plaintiff testified that in December, 1904, he stated to Mr. Olson that, if the two parties would get along and rent the premises jointly, the option to renew would be recognized, but that he would not rent to either of them separately. Mr. Olson answered that he would not rent in connection with Pherson, and that the Olson Company did not wish to renew the lease with Pherson. It is stated that this conversation took place in the presence of Pherson, and that he knew the Olson Company's attitude on that subject. Mr Olson denied that he had agreed with plaintiff to rent the building...