BAEHR V. PENN-O-TEX OIL CORP.
258 Minn. 533, 104 N.W. 2d 661 (1960)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Baehr (P), lessor, appealed an order granting Penn's (D), oil
company's, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in the P's action to
recover rents allegedly owed because of possession and contract.
FACTS: P leased gasoline filling stations to one Kemp, doing business as Webb Oil
Company. Kemp was purchasing the business known as Webb Oil Company and certain related
property from D. Kemp was heavily indebted to D. Kemp became unable to meet payments. On
December 10, 1955, Kemp gave D an assignment of accounts receivable and to become
receivable, including those involving P's filling stations. D collected rents paid by the
operators of the filling stations, received other payments made to Webb Oil Company, paid
some of its debts at Kemp's direction out of these sums, and installed its agent in the
office to run the business. P received a letter dated December 28, 1955, from Kemp, stating
that D had all of Kemp's assets tied up. P called D's agent to ask about payment of the
filling station rents. P was told 'that Mr. Kemp's affairs were in a very mixed up form but
that he would get them straightened out and mail checks for the rent.' P wrote a letter to D
asking what he had to do to get his rent checks and adding: 'Or will I have to give it to an
attorney to sue.' D replied by letter stating it was attempting to assist Kemp in keeping
the business going, 'but in no way are operating or taken possession.' D denied knowledge of
or responsibility for any rent due P. P again called D and asked for his rent. D's agent
then told P it would be taken care of. The rent was not paid, and in April or May 1956 P
returned to Minneapolis from Florida. P sent D a letter advising that he was reentering and
taking possession under the leases of the filling stations and because of failure to receive
rent. P sued for rents due on the filling stations for the period December 1, 1955, through
June 2, 1956, upon the grounds that D was in possession of the stations and had contracted
to pay the rent during this period. The court ruled that D neither took possession of the
filling stations nor an assignment of Kemp's leases. D then presented evidence on the issue
of a contract to pay the rents, and this issue was submitted to the jury under proper
instructions. The amount that would be due under such a contract was agreed upon; and the
jury returned a verdict for P in that amount. The district court granted D's motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict; and ordered a new trial in the event of reversal. P
appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment