ERNST V. CONDITT
54 Tenn. App. 328, 390 S.W.2d 703 (1964)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an appeal from an award of damages for past-due rent and
removal of improvements constructed on the leased property.
FACTS: Ernst (P) leased land to Rogers for one year and seven days and Rogers built a
go-cart business. Rogers operated the business for a short time and then entered into
negotiations to sell the business. Rogers sold the business to Conditt (D) who took
possession. The original lease stated that the lessee could not assign or sublet the
premises without the approval of the lessor. If the lessee did sublet or assign without
permission, he was still liable to the lessor. Rogers subleased the land to D for two years
with P's permission. In fact, D and Rogers went to the home of P and negotiated an extension
of the term of the lease. The lease was amended in writing. Rogers was given the right to
sublet the premises to D on the condition that Rogers remain personally liable to perform
the lease. D took possession but soon after stopped paying rent but still remained in
possession. D maintained that Rogers would still be liable to P. D stopped paying rent and
claimed that he was not responsible because he was simply subletting. P sued D to recover
back rent. D claimed that there was no privity between P and D. P claimed that the agreement
between Rogers and D was an assignment of the lease and thus D was liable to P. The court
ruled for P in that there was an assignment of the lease. D 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