Addieg v. Tull

Citations

• 187 F. 101
• 109 C.C.A. 24
• 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4489

Syllabus

<p>1. Landlord and Tenant (§ 22*) — Agreement for Leake — Validity</p> <p>Plaintiffs occupied premises owned by defendant under a written lease for 21 years, to secure performance of which on their part they had deposited with defendant $2,500. The premises were injured by (ire to such an extent as terminated the lease under its terms and entitled plaintiffs to a return of their deposit and a portion of the rent paid in advance. Afterward defendant made a written proposal, accepted by plaintiffs, that in case he rebuilt he would give them a new lease for 21 years on the same terms as the old, the deposit to remain in his hands “as an earnest of this agreement.” Held, that such agreement was compíete by reference to the terms of the prior lease, possessed mutuality, and was based on a valid consideration, and bound plaintiffs in case defendant rebuilt within a reasonable time.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Dee. Dig. § 22.*]</p> <p>2. Landlord and Tenant (§ 184*) — Agreement for Lease — Deposit by Lessee.</p> <p>The deposit having been held by defendant under the old lease on condition that, in case of any breach of its terms by plaintiffs, he was authorized to apply so much thereof as might “be necessary to liquidate the damage or damages arising therefrom,” was retained by him, not as rent due under the new agreement, nor as payment for an option, but merely as security for any damage which he might sustain by reason of the breach of such agreement; and where the agreement was repudiated by plaintiffs, after notice by defendant that he would rebuild, he was entitled to hold only so much thereof as would cover Ms actual damages proved.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Doc. Dig. | 181.*]</p>