Ward v. Robertson

• Decision Date: 05 February 1889
• Citation: 41 N.W. 603,77 Iowa 159
• Parties: WARD ET AL. v. ROBERTSON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

77 Iowa 159

41 N.W. 603

WARD ET AL.

v.ROBERTSON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 5, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Polk county; W. F. CONRAD, Judge.

This is an action in equity to cancel a lease of certain premises. There was a hearing upon the merits, and the petition was dismissed. Plaintiffs appeal.Cole, McVey & Clark, for appellants.

Baylies & Baylies, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, J.

The defendant is the owner of a block of buildings in the city of Des Moines, which is adapted to and used for business purposes. The main story consists of two rooms, which front east on Fifth street. The south side of the block is bounded by the line of Vine street. There is an arched driveway running north and south through the block, not far from its center. The tracks of the Rock Island Railroad run along Vine street, and there is an opening or doorway in the south side of the block, through which freight can be moved from cars into the building. In 1882 the plaintiffs were engaged in business as wholesale druggists, and also handled glass, oils, and other heavy goods. They entered into a lease with defendant for the north part of his block, in which to carry on their business. The lease was for five years from January 1, 1883, at a rental of $225 per month. The plaintiffs occupied the building, and carried on their business therein until June, 1886, when they ceased its use, and sublet it to another party. While it was occupied by the plaintiffs they frequently unloaded car-loads of their freight by moving it through the door on the south side of the south room, and across the room, and through a door on the opposite side of the room, and then across the driveway, and through a door into the part of the building used by the plaintiffs. When this was done, the doors in the south room occupied by defendant were, upon the request of plaintiffs, opened to permit the freight to be unloaded in the manner above described. This was not uniformly done. At times the south room occupied by the defendant was so used in storing goods and freight that cars could not be unloaded through his room. The defendant leased the south room to other parties before the plaintiffs sublet their room to the glass company. The glass company made application to unload goods through the south room, which was refused. This action is to cancel the lease, upon the ground that the right to move freight through the south room was a material inducement and consideration in the contract...