Wachenfeld v. Favre

• Decision Date: 21 January 1929
• Docket Number: 27593
• Citation: 119 So. 911,152 Miss. 1
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: WACHENFELD et al. v. FAVRE. [*]

119 So. 911

152 Miss. 1

WACHENFELD et al. v. FAVRE. ^[*]

No. 27593

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 21, 1929

Division B

LANDLORD AND TENANT. Conduct of B, making counter-proposition, in taking possession and paying rent, is acceptance of A's offer to lease for year.

Where A offers to lease for one year, at one hundred dollars per month, payable in advance on first of each month, and B declines offer, but makes counter-proposition that lease be for two years instead of one, to which proposition A refuses to accede, but B takes possession and pays rent in advance for two months, B's conduct is an acceptance of A's terms, provided B shall be unable to induce A to accept his terms, and constitutes a lease for one year.

HON. W A. WHITE, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Harrison county, HON. W. A. WHITE Judge.

Action in the county court by Mrs. T. M. Favre against A. Wachenfeld and others. From a judgment of the circuit court, affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mize, Mize & Thompson, for appellants.

J. A. Sykes, for appellee.

OPINION

ANDERSON, J.

Appellee brought this action in the county court of Harrison county against appellants to recover the sum of one hundred and seventy-five dollars for the rent of a building and lot in the city of Gulfport for the month of September, 1927, alleged to be due appellee by appellants. There was a judgment rendered by the county court in favor of appellee against appellants for the amount sued for, and from that judgment appellants appealed to the circuit court of Harrison county, which court affirmed the judgment of the county court. From the judgment of the circuit court, appellants prosecute this appeal.

There was no conflict in the evidence that there was a valid lease for the minimum term of one year. The evidence on behalf of appellants tended to show that there was a lease for one year with the option on the part of the appellants to renew the lease for a term of five years, or any part thereof, while the evidence for appellee was to the effect that there was a lease for two years without any option of renewal.

Appellants contend that there was no valid contract of lease because the minds of the parties did not meet on the terms of the lease. The terms of the lease not having been embodied in writing and executed by the parties, appellants went into possession of the premises and occupied them for two months, paying the agreed monthly rent in advance. By doing so appellants took the chances of coming to...