Sieward v. Denechaud

Citations

• 120 La. 720
• 45 So. 561
• 1908 La. LEXIS 559

Syllabus

<p>1. Landlord and Tenant — Lease oe Hoteit-Name.</p> <p>The name “Hotel Denechaud” was given to the business, and not to the property now owned by the plaintiff.</p> <p>2. Same — Sale.</p> <p>There is nothing in the deed of sale to the ancestor of plaintiff in title indicating that it was the intention to include the name as inseparably connected with the property.</p> <p>3. Same — Lease—Violation—No Ground to Annul.</p> <p>The change of the name “Hotel Denechaud,” to “The Inn,” by Denechaud, proprietor, was not a violation of the contract of lease which would justify a decree annulling the lease.</p> <p>4. Same — Not Damagingly Aeeected.</p> <p>The lessee has the right to set up new business in the same vicinity, provided he does not destroy or damage the old business.</p> <p>5. Same — Present Condition.</p> <p>The old business is not destroyed. ' The testimony is to the contrary; that the business is more remunerative since the new hotel has been opened than it was before.</p> <p>6. Same — Hotel Not Closed.</p> <p>Whether considered as a “hotel” or an “inn,” the property is used for the purpose intended under the terms of the lease, and nothing shows that at the expiration of the lease, or at this time, for that matter, anything is done that will prevent the lessee from delivering the property in accordance with condition of the lease.</p> <p>7. Same — No Cause oe Action.</p> <p>Erasing a name and substituting another is not, under the facts and circumstances, good ground for complaint. Injury is not proved.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>