Skip to main content
· 1/18/1904

Werlein v. Janssen

Citations

  • 112 La. 31
  • 36 So. 216
  • 1904 La. LEXIS 365

Syllabus

<p>LEASE — CONSTBUCTION—RENEWAL.</p> <p>1. Plaintiff and defendant entered into a lease for 24 months, commencing October 1, 1900, and ending September 30, 1902. The act of lease recited, “The lessee agrees to notify the lessor, or her agent in writing, on or before August 1st, 1902, it being understood and agreed that lessee has a privilege at the expiration of the lease, of renewal for three years at the same rental, in the event that lessor does not wish to occupy same for her own purpose.”</p> <p>On July 29, 1902, the lessee notified the lessor that he availed himself of said privilege of renewal for three years, and lessor received the notice on the 30th of July.</p> <p>On September 13, 1902, the lessor notified the lessee that she desired to occupy the premises for her own purposes on September 30, 1902. In the meantime, on August 13, 1902, she had written the lessee that she was considering, but had not definitely decided, whether she would need the premises, and suggested an interview. Several interviews were held, at which there were suggestions for a further lease for one 3'ear, but they resulted in nothing; and on the 13th of September, 1902, the lessor gave notice of her final decision to lessee. The latter refused at the expiration of the lease to vacate; claiming that by reason of the lessor’s not having, on his informing her on July 30, 1902, that he had availed himself of his privilege of renewal for three years, announced to him on or before the 1st of August that she wished to occupy the premises herself, a lease for three years at the same rental had been ipso facto created between the parties. Held, that this claim was not well founded. Held, also, that it was not essential to the existence of lessor’s right of declining to enter into a renewal of lease that her intended use of the property should have been an immediate use, nor that her intended use should have been a use exclusively to herself.</p> <p>Monroe, J., dissenting.</p> <p>(Syllabus by

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding Malaysia has the “overwhelming interest” in part because the airline at issue is “Malaysia’s national air carrier”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Monroe, Nicholls

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.