167 Iowa 395 | Iowa | 1914
The estate of C. Youngerman, Incorporated, is the owner of the premises in controversy, and in March of the year 1910 it leased the same by written lease to Abe Franbel and Nate Siegel for the term of ten years. The lease provided, among other things, that the lessees would—
not sell this lease nor underlet the entire premises without the written consent of the party of the first part, but may sublet portions of said building with the consent of the said party of the first part being first obtained thereto, provided, however, that the same shall not be sublet- to any tenant who will'use the said premises for any unlawful purpose or any housekeeping or for any business that shall be a detriment to the building or for any business that shall create a wear and tear more than the ordinary business of stores or offices or. light manufacturing, and that they would, at the expiration of this lease, surrender the possession of said premises to the party of the first part without further notice to quit in as good condition and repair as the same are now in or may be placed in by the party of the first part, unavoidable wear and tear alone excepted.
not allow the said premises to be damaged or depreciated in value by any act of negligence of theirs or their employés or any subtenant to whom they may lease the same under the provisions of this lease, in any manner whatever, and use all proper care and diligence in taking care of the same and at the expiration of this lease to surrender the said premises in a clean, presentable condition upon removal therefrom; and to comply with the ordinances of said city relative to the sanitary condition of said premises and the removal of snow and other obstructions from the sidewalk.
Frankel and Siegel assigned this lease to the plaintiff, a corporation doing business in the city of Des Moines, with the consent of the original lessor. Some time in September of. the year 1912, plaintiff entered into negotiations with defendant to lease a part of the building leased by them, and pursuant thereto they entered into a memorandum of agreement, which reads as follows:
This agreement made and entered into on this 5th day of September, A. D. 1912, witnesseth: That whereas the Alexandria Billliard Company, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the state of Iowa, hereinafter known as party of the first part, holds a lease for a period of eight years from the 25th day of June, 1912, from the C. Younger-man Estate, Incorporated, on the premises locally known as 513 and 515 Locust St., Des Moines, Iowa, and whereas J. Miloslowsky, hereinafter known as party of the second part, is desirous of subletting the first floor of the building upon the said property for the unexpired portion of the lease, it is therefore mutually agreed by and between the parties hereto that party of the first part agrees to sublet said first floor of said premises save and except that portion of the said first floor now occupied by a saloon, and a ten-foot entrance off the
Witness our hands at Des Moines, Iowa, this 5th day of September, A. D. 1912.
[Signed] Alexandria Billiard Co.,
By A. Frankel, Pres., Party of the First Part.
J. Miloslowsky,
Party of the Second Part.
It will be observed that this is a conditional agreement, and that it contemplated the execution of a subsequent written
A lease was prepared which was satisfactory to both parties, and which this plaintiff was willing and offered to execute; that said defendants refused to execute said lease and perform the conditions of said agreement set out in plaintiff’s original petition, demanding that the said C. Youngerman Estate, Incorporated, agree to guarantee the furnishing of heat in said building and perform other conditions not required or set out in said written agreement between plaintiff and defendant, basing his refusal to perform the'conditions of said agreement to be performed by him solely and only upon the refusal of the said C. Youngerman Estate, Incorporated, to comply with conditions which were not embodied in said agreement; that defendant thereby prevented and waived further compliance with the conditions of said contract and agreement.
Defendant admitted the execution of the memorandum of agreement, but denied each and every other allegation of the petition and an amendment thereto. After plaintiff had introduced all his testimony in support of its pleadings, defendant moved for a directed verdict, and this motion was sustained; a verdict was accordingly directed, and judgment rendered thereon. The appeal is primarily from the ruling on the motion.
It seems that, when the matter of subleasing a part of the property to the defendant was presented to the owner, it prepared and submitted to the parties the following memorandum: .
(1) That the changes and alterations to be made by the said J. Miloslowsky shall be under the direction and supervision of the architects, Proudfoot, Bird & Rawson, and shall be satisfactory to said architects that the strength of the building is not in any way impaired thereby, and that the expense of the architects shall be paid by the said J. Miloslowsky.
(2) That J. Miloslowsky shall at the expiration of its lease replace iron columns in the same place they now are, and also put the entire room in the condition it now is, if so demanded by the Estate of C. Youngerman, Incorporated,
(3) That J. Miloslowsky shall pay the rentals under said lease direct to the Estate of C. Youngerman, Incorporated, and same be applied upon the rent of the lease between the Estate. of C. Youngerman, Incorporated, and Frankel & Siegel; the Alexandria Billiard Company being successors of said firm Frankel & Siegel.
(4) That the .consent hereby given shall not in any way release Frankel & Siegel or the Alexandria Billiard Company from any obligation or liability under their lease with the Estate of C. Youngerman, Incorporated, for entire building.
(5) That the said Alexandria Billiard Company, or Frankel & Siegel, shall assign to the Estate of 0. Younger-man, Incorporated, the lease with J. Miloslowsky, as collateral security for the payment of the rent agreed upon in the said original lease above mentioned.
(6) That in case there is an increase in the insurance upon the building, by reason of the occupancy of J. Miloslowsky, said Miloslowsky shall pay to the Estate of C. Youngerman, Incorporated, such additional cost of insurance.
(7) That the said Miloslowsky will not use or permit the use of phonographs, graphophones, or other similar instruments upon said premises.
This agreement was not signed by any one representing the owner, or by the defendant, and it embodied many propo
Frankel, representing the plaintiff, said:
The agreement that Mr. Youngerman presented to Miloslowsky was discussed there. There were some things that Miloslowsky wanted Mr. Youngerman to do that Youngerman didn’t feel like doing, and putting the same in the same shape it was after the lease was up as it was when he took it. . . . Miloslowsky finally said it was all right; that he was coming up to sign it. I saw Miloslowsky the next day in regard to this contract, and he had a talk with him. He said that the deal was off. That Mr. Youngerman didn’t want to do what he wanted him to do, or something like that.
On cross-examination he said:
Mr. Miloslowsky and I both expressed ourselves in Mills’ office that we were satisfied with the lease, but I didn’t sign it up at that time because Mr. Miloslowsky was not ready to sign it, I guess. He didn’t sign it. There was nothing special said about finding out whether Youngerman would permit
The general manager of the Youngerman Estate testified that he was in Strauss’ office at the time mentioned by Frankel, and he said:
Well, there was nothing of consequence said by Mr. Miloslowsky in regard to this instrument (Exhibit 3) as to its being satisfactory or otherwise, only he said he would take it and think it over that evening. The instrument that I had there was not signed by him. Mr. Ayres: What was discussed there in regard to this matter between Mr. Miloslowsky and Frankel, and what, if anything, did you offer to do, or say you would do, in regard to subletting or remodeling? A. There was nothing said: I did not offer to remodel anything. Everything was all satisfactory to me, according to Exhibit 3, in regard to allowing them to sublet the premises to Miloslowsky and in regard to remodeling by Miloslowsky of the premises. I don’t remember anything said by them in regard to that being satisfactory to them. . . . The agreement was read over by Mr. Miloslowsky there. I don’t remember whether it was discussed there or not. Mr. Ayres: When you got through and started to leave, what, if anything, was said in regard to this contract being satisfactory or otherwise by Mr. Miloslowsky? A. It was satisfactory. He said that he would take this evening to think it over and give me an answer in the morning. He had reference to the conditions whereby we were giving consent.
Exhibit 5 is a copy of the lease between the Youngerman Estate and the Alexandria Billiard Company, dated March 30, 1910, and it was on account of this lease that we had this made in Mr. Strauss’ office. It was for the purpose of considering the matter of consenting to the subletting by the Alexandria Billiard Company to Mr. Miloslowsky. I don’t know who wrote Exhibit 3. The last paragraph was written by Mr. Strauss. I don’t know where all of Exhibit 3 was prepared. The last paragraph was prepared by Mr. Strauss himself in his own office. I don’t know as to whether this Exhibit 3 is the original document, which I had before me at that time. . . . The one that I had before me at that time was the one on which part was written by Mr. Strauss with pen. There was no other there at that time in which a paragraph had been written by Mr. Strauss with pen. . . I did not sign a statement of conditions upon which I suggested that the Youngerman Estate might consent to the lease or would insist upon being attached to the lease. I don’t know whether such a statement was signed by the Alexandria Billiard Company. I don’t know whether it was signed by Miloslowsky. Miloslowsky took it away with him that night. The document that he took away was Exhibit 3, and I have not seen it from that time until to-day. I understand that, when he took it away, he wanted to read it again and consider it over night. He did not return it to me or any other paper signed. The lease was not made. ... No lease was ever signed by and between this party. The Youngerman Estate did not give its consent to any lease to any of the parties to this action.
On redirect the witness said:
When we were at Mr. Strauss’ office, this agreement (Exhibit 3) was discussed there. There was no objection to this paragraph in Exhibit 3 ‘that the changes and alterations to be made by J. Miloslowsky shall be under the direction and supervision of the architects, Proudfoot, Bird & Rawson, and shall be satisfactory to said architects; that the strength of the building is not in any way impaired thereby; and that the expense of the said architects shall be paid by the said J. Miloslowsky.’ Mr. Miloslowsky read tha¡t there and saw it. Nothing was said as to paragraph 2 of Exhibit 3 ‘that J.
On reeross-examination the witness said:
I don’t know who prepared Exhibit 3. I saw it first in Mr. Strauss’ office. It was lying on the desk there. I read it myself there. I don’t recall whether it was read aloud or not. Miloslowsky read it. After he read it, nobody signed it, but Miloslowsky said he would take it home with him and read it again and consider it over night before he determined what he would do with it. Mr. Howe: With the understanding that he was going to take it home with him and read it over and consider it over night before he determined what course he would eventually pursue? The Court: Tell what he said. A. Well, I recall that he said he would take it home with him and reconsider it and let me know in the morning. I didn’t see him any more that evening. I don’t know when the date of that was.
He testified still further as follows:
I saw Mr. Miloslowsky the next day. In regard to Exhibit 3, he came in my office in the morning and told me that, in the lease between the Youngerman Estate and Frankel, Frankel was to furnish the heat, and, in case Mr. Frankel was in any way to fail,, if I would not furnish heat, and I told
Exhibit 3, referred to by these witnesses, is the written paper prepared by or for the Youngerman Estate, which we have already quoted.
This is all the material testimony upon what we regard the controlling issues in the case. There is no testimony that “the pillars could be removed so as to make a suitable room for the moving picture business,” and no testimony as to whether or not the city of Des Moines would grant a license for a moving picture show in the building. It is apparent that ,no written lease has ever been signed by the parties hereto, and defendant did not, at any time, sign Exhibit 3. He has refused to sign either paper, and, if plaintiff has any cause of action, it must be upon the original memorandum of agreement which was signed by both parties. That agreement in terms imposed certain conditions upon the plaintiff, and there is no showing that these have been complied with. Moreover, there is no affirmative showing, as we have said, that the pillars could be removed from the room. There is no testimony showing that plaintiff was at any expense because of the execution of the preliminary agreement; and this agreement expressly says that part of the consideration should not be paid
Both parties contemplated that a written lease should be executed in the future, which would be satisfactory to both parties; and it affirmatively appears that no such contract was ever executed. Plaintiff contends, however, that it is entitled to damages because defendant refused to execute a lease in accordance with the terms of this memorandum of agreement, through no fault of the plaintiff; and that it performed all it agreed to do under this agreement. In other words, it counts on the breach of an agreement to make a subsequent agreement, which later agreement was never in fact made. In order to recover on this theory, plaintiff must show that he did all that was required of him under the terms of the agreement, and that defendant should, by the terms of the preliminary agreement, have made and entered into the lease as agreed; and, if he has shown these things, he is entitled to damages, for the breach thereof, the difference between the contract price, as agreed upon, and what the lessor was able to realize out of the property after he was notified that the defendant did not intend to take it. Post v. Davis, 7 Kan. App. 217, (52 Pac. 903); Cleveland v. Bryant, 16 S. C. 634.
A contract to make and execute a certain written agreement, the terms of which are specific, and mutually understood, is, in all respects, as valid and obligatory, where no statutory objection interposes, as the written contract itself would be, if executed. If, therefore, it should appear . . . that the minds of the parties had met, that a proposition for a contract had been made by one party and accepted by the other, that the terms of this contract were, in all respects, definitely understood and agreed upon, and that a part of the mutual understanding was that a written contract, embodying those terms, should be drawn and executed by the respective parties, this is an obligatory contract, which neither party is at liberty to refuse to perform.
One of the controlling questions in the case is: Did the minds of the parties meet upon all the terms and conditions of the proposed lease, or was something left to future negotiations, upon which the minds of the parties never met?
It seems to us that the original proposition contemplated an agreement with the owner to the subletting, which agreement was never in fact executed, and that defendant, while expressing satisfaction with the proposed agreement of the owner, at the same time refused to execute it, until he had time to think it over, and that, after reflection, he refused to accept the terms proposed by the owner as a condition precedent to the making of any binding lease. Moreover, the agreement contemplated the execution of a lease satisfactory to the defendant, and he was so dissatisfied with the one prepared and with the terms proposed by the owner that he refused to enter into the lease.
True, as we have said, defendant expressed satisfaction therewith, but, before becoming bound, he expressly refused to
The motion seems to have been correctly sustained, and the judgment musí be, and it is — Affirmed.