Pike v. Cincinnati Realty Co.

Citations

• 179 F. 97
• 102 C.C.A. 391
• 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4617

Syllabus

<p>1. Landlord and Tenant (§ 156*) — Construction oe Lease eor Long Term —Destruction oe Buildings by Fire — Rebuilding—Proceeds oe Insurance — “In the Same Condition.”</p> <p>Improved city real estate left in trust by a will was leased for 99' years by authority from the court; the lease providing that the-lessee should maintain the property in good condition and repair, that he should not remove nor destroy the improvements, that if he should cause improvements, repairs, or changes to be made he, should “replace old improvements by new ones of equal value and fully as substantial,” and. that he should maintain insurance on the property, payable to the trusted of the estate, “for the use and benefit” of the beneficiaries under the will. It further provided that, should there be a partial or total loss of the buildings and improvements, the insurance, money collected therefrom should, “be applied and expended to replace said improvements upon said property in the same condition as before said damage occurred.” Held, that such provisions were intended principally to afford security for the rent and the restoration of the property in unimpaired condition at the end of the term, and should be construed, together with that purpose in view; that the provision that the insurance money should be used to replace the improvements “in the .same condition” as before did not require the lessee, after the buildings had been destroyed by fire, to rebuild them in the same form as the old, but that his obligation was only to replace them with new ones “of equal value.and fully as substantial,” for which purpose he was entitled to the insurance money; nor did such provisions warrant the trustee, after collecting the insurance, and when the lessee was proceeding to build a large hotel on the property of four or five times the value of the old buildings, in refusing to pay over the insurance money on the ground that the beneficiaries did not approve of the building.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.