Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P sued to compel the acceptance by D of monthly advance rent in the sum of $120.00 for premises that P leased from D. The lease was dated March 29, 1945, and was to run for a period of ten years, with the right of renewal, under certain conditions, for an additional fifteen years. P was to use the store for an electrical appliance shop. P charged that D refused to accept the January 1952 rent; and such amount, together with the amount to accrue until the disposition of the cause, was paid into the registry of the court. P prayed for permission to continue the payment of the monthly rentals into court in order to prevent a forfeiture for failure to pay rent when, and as the same became due until the court should direct the method and manner of payment. D refused rent because P made material changes and alterations in the building without her permission; and that they declined to restore the building to its former state after she protested. A partition had been placed in the building, which shut off about ten leaving the store proper only twenty feet instead of thirty feet wide. P then sublet that part of the store to a jewelry store. P also changed the glass as well. There were no provisions in the lease prohibiting this conduct by P. P refused to undue the changes and D stopped accepting rent. D claimed that these acts converted the building into a different kind of structure, with consequent damage to its value; that such material changes constituted waste; and that the restoration of the building to its previous state will be expensive. D prayed for the cancellation of the lease and the assignment, and for recovery of damages on account of the changes. At trial, P showed that the changes were temporary in nature; that the building could be restored to its previous condition at small cost; and the changes increased its value. P also claims D knew of the changes and did not protest. The building was insured for $15,000 and D’s witness testified it would cost $1,000 to restore the building. The court found for P and D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.