Ernst v. Conditt

54 Tenn. App. 328, 390 S.W.2d 703 (1964)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ernst (P) leased land to Rogers for one year and seven days and Rogers built a go-cart business. Rogers operated the business for a short time and then entered into negotiations to sell the business. Rogers sold the business to Conditt (D) who took possession. The original lease stated that the lessee could not assign or sublet the premises without the approval of the lessor. If the lessee did sublet or assign without permission, he was still liable to the lessor. Rogers subleased the land to D for two years with P's permission. In fact, D and Rogers went to the home of P and negotiated an extension of the term of the lease. The lease was amended in writing. Rogers was given the right to sublet the premises to D on the condition that Rogers remain personally liable to perform the lease. D took possession but soon after stopped paying rent but still remained in possession. D maintained that Rogers would still be liable to P. D stopped paying rent and claimed that he was not responsible because he was simply subletting. P sued D to recover back rent. D claimed that there was no privity between P and D. P claimed that the agreement between Rogers and D was an assignment of the lease and thus D was liable to P. The court ruled for P in that there was an assignment of the lease. D appealed.