Washington Securities Co. v. Oppenheimer & Co.

• Decision Date: 07 July 1931
• Docket Number: 23017.
• Citation: 1 P.2d 236,163 Wash. 338
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: WASHINGTON SECURITIES CO. v. OPPENHEIMER & CO.

1 P.2d 236

163 Wash. 338

WASHINGTON SECURITIES CO. v. OPPENHEIMER & CO.

No. 23017.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 7, 1931

As Corrected August 6, 1931.

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; R. M. Webster, Judge.

Action by the Washington Securities Company, a corporation, against Oppenheimer & Co., a corporation. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed with instructions.

Edward C. Hudson, of Seattle, for appellant.

HOLCOMB J.

Appellant sued respondent to collect rents due on a written lease in the sum of $205, the balance due to the end of the term.

Appellant is the owner of the Securities building, an office building in Seattle. On about September 12, 1928, it leased to respondent room No. 814 in that building for one year. Respondent paid rent for the office room according to the terms of the lease up to and including May 31, 1929. On about February 9, 1929, respondent gave notice in writing that it would vacate the room on or Before April 1, 1929. On about that date it did vacate the room without any stated cause to appellant, but continued to pay rent up to May 31, at which time it ceased to pay rent under the lease. The lease expired on September 30, 1929. On receipt of the letter of February 9 from respondent to appellant, appellant acknowledged receipt thereof by a letter dated February 14 1929, and advised respondent that its lease would not expire until September 30, 1929, and that appellant would be held responsible for the lease obligation in the event it vacated the office. On June 10, 1929, respondent wrote to appellant that, inasmuch as respondent 'had been paying rent on the office room and that it was being used by appellant as a storage room and that a certain amount of benefits had been released by removal of a part of the sign of appellant from the front door respondent felt under no obligation to further pay rent,' and stated that it was therewith inclosing the keys to the office. On June 12, 1929, appellant acknowledged receipt of that latter and notified respondent that no space was being used belonging to respondent as a storage room or in any other manner to obtain any revenue for the building that appellant had been making every effort to rent the space for the account of respondent and at one time felt that if had been able to do so; that appellant would have been glad to confer with respondent as to the possibility of a lower rent for the space occupied by respondent; that, if any portion of the sign had been removed, it was without the knowledge or personal information of the agent, and it could and would be restored if such was the desire of respondent. Respondent was again informed that it would be expected to continue to pay the rental until the lease expired and that the space was at the disposal of respondent at any time.

Respondent answered the complaint of appellant, admitting most of the allegations, denying some, including the allegation of indebtedness to appellant, and set up as an affirmative defense an eviction by appellant.

Respondent has made no appearance in...