Hincks v. Hoffman

Citations

• 12 Teiss. 218
• 1915 La. App. LEXIS 31

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>Whether one who signs a lease is a party liable in solido with the lessee or a mere surety is a question of fact to be determined by the terms of the lease or by the intention of the parties.</p> <p>The lease contains the following clause: “It is further agreed that the omission of either the lessors or lessee to give written notice, the one to the other, two months prior to the expiration of this lease, of his or their intention not to renew it shall operate its renewal upon the same terms and conditions for the period of one year from the date of its expiration.” Held; this is a lease only for the period mentioned in the contract, and not for such additional time for which it might be renewed by the silence of the lessor and lessee.</p> <p>Held, further: that when the lessor and lessee both omitted to give the notice above provided the lease was tacitly renewed for one year under the contract, in the same manner that it would have been renewed for one month under the law. That the tacit renewal under the contract created a new contract, for which the surety on the original lease was not liable.</p> <p>Suretyship is of strict law, and must be restrained as to time, person,’ and amount within the plain terms of the contract.</p>