*1
(Te*-
required
up
title
tbat tbe
or
be
to set
eviction
certainly fol
STUBBLEFIELD v. JONES et al.
eviction would
tbat
sucb.
(No. 1209.)
pleadings
assert.
do not
tbe
low. Tbis
asking
warranty,
to re
a breach of
tbis was
(Court
Appeals
Texas. El
Civil
Paso.
any part
prop
tbe
all or
cover tbe value of
April 14,
Rehearing
1921.
Denied
failed,
exchanged,
title to
bad
which
erties
then
tbe
May 5, 1921.)
appel
holdings of our
tbe
courts
&wkey;»
tbe
for
Subletting
1. Landlord
lant
be entitled
would
and tenant
for-
104—
feits lease.
foreclosure
tbe
of tbe land so lost with
it,
is,
tbe
Under Rev.
art.
a lien. This
as we understand
St.
Street,
demised
without the land-
decisions. White v.
effect of our
lord’s consent renders the lease
following
it.
and cases
Tex.
option, subject
the landlord’s
to forfeiture.
foreclosure, be would
In
to obtain
order
<&wkey;
justifying
up
Fore
tbe facts
it.
2. Landlord and
I—Reservation of
have to set
relation;
not essential to
rent
in an action
awarded
closure could
“tenant.”
trespass
try title.
in an action
deceit or
of landlord and tenant
is al-
Dwyer,
Rippetoe
win,
v. God
Pratt
ways
by
im-
Certainly
bad
tbe
4£=>For
*2
Tex.)
v. JONES
STUBBLEFIELD
721
(230 3.W.)
special
answers,
Eastland,
Cyrus
Frost,
B. W. Patter-
issues. The issues and
B.
of
pertinent
Stubblefield,
appeal,
to
Cisco,
of East-
son,
’are as follows:
R.
of
J.
appellant.
land,
“Question
defendants,
No. 1: Did the
Smith,
McRae,
of
all
&
and Conner
M. J.
Allison,
them,
Jones and J. C.
or either of
on
appellees.
Eastland,
day March, 1919,
or about the 1st
of
subrent
part
premises
plain-
of the
in
described
petition
Lykins
Boyd,
tiff’s
to
&
a firm com-
brought
suit
HIGGINS,
J.
posed
Lykins
Boyd?
of J.
and Joe G.
S.
Allison, appel-
against F. A. Jones and J. C.
connection, you
“In this
are instructed that
portion
lees,
of
of
recover
to
subtenantry
subleasing
in a contract
of
building
to
Eastland and
town
agree-
the facts of this ease there must be an
same. The
rental value
recover
parties
understanding
ment and
between the
was
the suit for
basis of
Company
effect
the
sented to
that Jones-Allison
con-
property,
Allison,
occupancy
had
part
&
lessees of
Jones
forfeited their
use and
of a
building
rights
controversy,
lease contract
under a
that some con-
sideration would
move to said
premises
Jones-Allison
whereby
Stub-
let
had been
Company
directly
indirectly
either
aas
them,
they
had sublet
blefield
sult
building
use and
of said
Boyd
Lykins
premises
portion
&
Lykins Boyd.”
said
&
consent,
for which
without Stubblefield’s
“.We answer: No.”
forfeit and ter-
latter had elected to
son the
The defendants
the lease contract.
minate
request
And this
any
issue
at
specially
had sublet
denied that
plaintiff:
building. However,
part
con-
of the
they alleged that—
nection
Jury:
defendants,
“Gentlemen of the
Did the
them, agree
Lykins
Boyd,
either of
making
with
plaintiff
“When
learned
was
that the said
could use and oc-
had sublet a
defendants
contention
portion
cupy any part
building
controversy
building,
that an
of said
effort was
place
as a
part
explain
which to transact real
busi-
the true facts
estate
made on their
and
ness?
said
existed at
conditions
plaintiff
“Answer: Tes.”
existed,
since
unto the
ever
plaintiff
Lykins
herein,
informed
that K. S.
being,allowed
and one Joe G.
Judgment
denying
was rendered
the relief
through courtesy
temporarily re-
defendants
sought,
appeals.
and Stubblefield
portion
building
front
of said
used
main
and
[1,
part
there was a
of a
occupied by
office,
the defendants as
premises
payment
rents,
the demised
without
the consent of
the en-
without the
tering
landlord,
op
until these the
the lease
opportunity
subject
had an
to seek the con-
defendants
sent
tion of the
was
to forfei
plaintiff
authorizing
herein,
them
5489,
Statutes;
ture. Article
Hud-
enter into a rental contract with said
gins Bowes,
v.
230 S.W.-46 (Tex. ap quoted conflict with the [3] This definition proper Stayton, Forrest proval there was no basis Chief Justice rendition Dumell, a new any person sustains should have ordered. who been there held that *3 [4, Upon is property owner its the return of here and statute the verdict a such in, plaintiff judgment meaning motion the a filed a the within a lien thereon in upon property has his favor. This over motion was the landlord whose person be a ruled and the de rendered for 'whether secure rent to lessee, objection exception only fendants assignee, subtenant. over the a and an Wood, plaintiff. it Motion Mr. for new trial was not the definition Tested below, any assign majority filed ments of In that court nor are to the clear seems Jones, incorporated transcript. Allison in the subtenants became appellant's presented as his a brief has paragraphs mat of error the various consent. them and under of his motion to render consent that’ their ters not proper assignments That verdict. ject approval These not are Stubblefield. to the error, and of simply and the case court is before this condition Boyd without.proper assignments. stat It is the fact that not alter the does utory duty court, however, & Jones trial Allison to ren into went Nor der accordance with the latter’s and does make authorities that Lykins jury, cited from a unless the same be set aside and difference it granted, do, moved consideration failure so opinion, presents the use in our a fundamental error to the premises. The want which can court and should be considered this and any character This would affect or not. consideration objec implication observation is made tenancy view 'of Frink, tion made that tenancy Harris v. no. will. create properly assigned errors which this court Bolton, 318; Rep. Rich v. 24, 10 N. Y. Am. objected by can take notice. It is further Am. 46 Vt. appeal properly that this & Jones Allison The fact that presented because file failed to possession as Lykins Boyd a motion for a new trial in the court below. courtesy presents no accommodation objection This is not well taken for the rea subletting fense. The statute son that motion for new trial was not nec subletting operation exempt its from not essary appeal; hav the case courtesy to as an accommodation made ing 1990, 1991, upon special been tried Articles issues. ex- statute does the Neither the subtenant. Statutes; Yarley Nich temporary operation a sublet- empt from its ols-Shepard Co., Sales 191 S. Ruda- W. question bene- for the ting. The statute Rudasill, sill v. empow- is intended fit the landlord asks that say. who him the secure to er and shall versed and here rendered for the premises. occupy Markowitz the. reasonable Co., S. W. Circuit Theatrical Greenwall thereof the date he elected Durnell, supra. cancel the lease to the This Forrest v. date of trial. large statute, purpose meas- cannot be done for the reason that that ure, if were held sonable defeated rental value was for the determina- would be subletting jury, there- temporary by, forbidden tion of the and this was found ac- matter of were instructed not question inhibited. No. 'find answered commodation The opinion negative. majority finding in the 1 by properly absence jury upon issue, find- facts court cannot disposing ings plaintiff’s estab- render a final to the finding all the issues. lishes question Judge controlling WALTHALL is the answer over light that, ground in the case should be affirmed for the reason on the special answer, instruction, the uncontroverted evidence af- shows court’s the to sideration response firmatively undisputed evidence, Lykins Boyd let into simply no con- found consent consenting, for the Stubblefield not Boyd. occupancy by We contract be- use should for Stubblefield tween Jones & Allison would tween Stubblefield and Jones & think have been rendered issue the not justify a forfeiture of the lease be- view, him. If this Allison. finding, controlling tlje effect of latter For the reasons the cause is re- correct, that the same we think versed and remanded. then