Hirsh v. Valloft

Citations

• 121 La. 66
• 46 So. 103
• 1907 La. LEXIS 678

Syllabus

<p>1. Appeal — Jurisdiction — Amount in Controversy.</p> <p>Where a sublessee sued out an injunction to protect him in the peaceable enjojmient of the leased premises, and also for $2,000 damages for trespass already committed, the value of the sublease forms a part of the “matter in dispute,” and must be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 2, Appeal and Error, §§ 233-260.]</p> <p>2. Landlord and Tenant —Lease — Construction— “The Premises Which He Holds Under Lease.”</p> <p>It appearing that the parties to the contract of lease interpreted it to mean that the lessee was entitled to hold thereunder only the store proper, or ground floor of a building, and that he in fact held only that part of the building, and it also appearing that a sublessee, before making his contract, was apprised of such interpretation and of the fact stated, the language, “the premises which he holds under lease,” used to describe the property subleased, is construed to mean the property actually held by the sublessee, rather than that which he might have held, had the lease to him been otherwise interpreted.</p> <p>3. Same — Rights of Lessor — Improvements.</p> <p>A lessor has no right, without the consent of the lessee, to impose additional burdens on leased premises, or to enter thereon for the purposes of putting in improvements to enhance the rental value of other property, or for the convenience of other tenants, and the lessee may enjoin him from so doing.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 32, Landlord and Tenant, §§ 460, 608-610.]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>