Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

......

BUBJECT

Bronz PAA

Russell Polk County Abstract

Co.......

}Torto............. 87 Iowa, 233.... 881

Russell v, Russell....... ....... Partition. .........122 Mo. 23B ..... 581

Sanders v. Pottlitzer Bros. Fruit Contracto.........14 N. Y. 209.... 767

Saunders v. New York etc. R. R. Accretion..........144 N. Y. 76..... 729

Sedgwick v. Houston.

.Bail.....

9 Houst. 113... 165

Seip's Estate...

Attorney and client. 163 Pa. St. 423... 803

Shilling v. Mullen.

Assignment........ 55 Minn. 122.... 475

Shultz v. Shultz.....

.Judgments... ...136 Ind. 323..... 320

Simpkins v. Simpkins.

Judgments. 14 Mont. 386.... 641

Slocum v. Bracy... ..... Vendor and purch'r. 65 Minn, 249 ... 499

Smith v. Clausmeier...... .....Habeas corpus.....136 Ind. 105..... 311

Smith v. Michigan Cent. R. R. Co Carriers ...100 Mich. 148.... 440
Smith v. Smith..

Partnership

....... 87 Iowa, 93..... 359

Smith v. State...

...New trial...

69 Ark. 132. ....

20

Sorenson v. Swensen. ....Justices of the peace. 55 Minn. 58.... 472
State v. Billings.......

Due process of law.. 55 Minn. 467.... 525

State v. Chambers....

Incest......

87 Iowa, 1...... 349

State v. International Invest. Co.. Corporations 88 Wis. 512..... 920

Stato V. Junean..

.. Lewdness,

88 Wis. 180..... 877

Stato v. Van Beek..... .Officers ..... 87 Iowa, 569.... 397

Swartz v. Morgan. .

. Attorney and client. 163 Pa. St. 195... 786
Texarkana Gas etc. Co. v. Orr.... Appeal........... 59 Ark. 215..... 80
Thamling v. Duffey..

.Neg. instruments... 14 Mont. 567.... 658
Thompson v. Gorner.............

.Neg. instruments. . .104 Cal. 168...... 81

Thompson v. McCorkle...... .Tax salcs........

136 Ind. 484.....

334

Times Pub. Co. v. City of Everett. Mun corporations.. 9 Wash. 518.... 865
Trustees v. Lewis.... ...Coupon bonds...... 34 Fla. 424...... 209
Tubridy v. Wright.......

.......... Mechanic's lien.....144 N. Y. 519.... 776

Twiss v. Guaranty Life Assn. ....Corporations....... 87 Iowa, 733.... 418

Union oto. Ins. Co. v. Taggart....Insurance........ 55 Mind. 95. ... 474
Visalia Gas eta. Co. v. Sims...... Corporations ...... 104 Cal. 326..... 105
Walker v. State....

Homicide....... 34 Fla. 167 186

Webber V. Ramsey.

. Mortgages ..... 100 Mich. 58..... 129

Webster v. Clark..

Partnership. ...... 34 Fla. 637...... 217

Whittaker v. Helena.... Negligence ..... 14 Mont. 124... 621

Wickersham v. Johnson... ..Foreign laws ...... 104 Cal. 407 118
Wilson v. Hunter

. Adverse possession. . 69 Ark. 626..... 63

Wintringham v. Hayes.... Witnesses......

8.........144 N. Y. 1...

725

Wolcott v. Patterson........... ..Married women.... 100 Mich. 227.... 456

Wolf v. State......

. Intoxicating liquors. 69 Ark, 297..... 34

Wood v. Armour ......

Taxes.. .. .... 88 Wis. 488..... 918

Wood v. Wood..

Mar'ge and divorce. 69 Ark. 441..... 12

Worthon v. Griffith.....

Assignment for

60

{

} 50 Ark. 503 ....

AMERICAN STATE REPORTS.

VOL XLIIL

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

JONES V. HOARD.

(59 ARKANSAS, 42.) ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS-CONTRACT EXECUTED IN DUPLICATE.—If a

lease is executed in duplicate, both the landlord and tenant retaining a copy, both copies are originals, and the fraudulent alteration by the tenant of the copy retained by him does not annul the lease, because the

remaining copy is sufficient to sustain the contract between the parties. LANDLORD AND TENANT_IMPROVEMENTS. -A tenant cannot recover for

improvements erected by him on the leased premises, without the con. sent and against the protest of the landlord. W. G. Whipple, for the appellant. Ratcliffe and Fletcher, for the appellee.

44 BATTLE, J. This action was brought in the Pulaski chancery court by Jackson Hoard against George E. Jones to cancel a lease by which Hoard demised to Jones a certain town lot in the city of Little Rock, for three years from the first day of May, 1888, at the annual rent of twenty-four dollars, payable quarterly; and to restrain the lessee from erecting costly improvements on the demised premises.

The lease was executed in duplicate, and each party retained a counterpart. By the terms of it the lessee was permitted to build five fences and dig a well on the lot, and the lessor agreed that one-half of the rent should be appropriated to the payment of the expense of 45 building the fences until it was paid in full. The lessor was to pay all taxes and assessments on the lot and improvements; and at the end of the term was to pay for the improvements at their

AX. ST. REP., VOL. XLIIL - 2 17

value at that time, or continue the lease at the same rate until he should pay for them.

During the term of the lease Jones, the lessee, erected two small frame houses on the lot, and was erecting a third, of brick, when this action was instituted.

The main contention in this action grows out of the clause: “ The lessee is allowed to build three houses." This clause appears in the counterpart of the lease which was retained by Jones, but is not in the one held by Hoard. As originally written nothing was said in ihe lease about houses. Hoard insists that the clause was inserted after the execution of the lease, without his consent or knowledge, and Jones Bays it was inserted by him by permission of Hoard, and that the lease was thereafter acknowledged before a justice of the peace by both parties.

As to the first two houses erected by Jones there is no controversy. The parties agree that they were built by Jones under an agreement that Hoard would pay the value of the same to Jones when the possession of the lot was delivered according to the terms of the lease, and that the lease should continue in force, at the annual rent of twenty-four dollars, until such payment should be made. As to the third house Hoard says that he protested against the erection of it at the time Jones commenced to build it, but Jones insists that plaintiff requested him to build a storehouse, and, after he commenced to do so, objected to the kind of building he was putting up, but told him “if it would n't cost more than five hundred dollars, to go ahead and build it." however, that it cost eleven hundred and fifty dollars or more.

46 At the hearing both parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. The appraisement of the buildings by persons selected by the parties, showing the value thereof to be fifteen hundred and fifty dollars, was introduced and read as evidence.

The court decreed that Hoard should pay to Jones the sum of fifteen hundred and fifty dollars for the three houses; that Jones should surrender possession on the payment to him of that amount, and of the sum of thirty-six dollars and seventy-five cents due him for fencing, less the sum of fourteen dollars due Hoard for rent of the lot from the first day of October, 1890, until May 1, 1891, the date of the expiration of the lease; and that Jones pay to Hoard for the use of the lot the sum of ten dollars a month from the 1st of May, 1891,

It appears,

« AnteriorContinuar »