75 W. Va. 229 | W. Va. | 1914
Judgment for plaintiff in an action of unlawful detainer and defendant brings error. The action was originally
“It is further agreed that the parties of the second part shall have the right at any time to sell or remove buildings placed on said premises.
“All the conditions between the parties hereto shall extend to their heirs, Executors, and Assigns.” The writing was signed and sealed by both lessors and lessees.
The lessees entered and each built a dwelling house on the land, together worth from $2,500. to $4,000. J. W. Gaffney sold and assigned his interest in the lease to Mike Sexton who occupies one of the houses. The rent has been paid semiannually in advance up until 14th November, 1909, when a tender of a half year’s rent was made and refused. Plaintiffs then offered to make a new lease in consideration of $100 annual rental, which defendant declined, and hence this action. Mrs. Williamson died and, later, Gora Dils also died leaving as her heirs at law the plaintiffs, Cora, Theresa, Ruby and Robert P. Thaw. On the 8th April, 1910, plaintiffs gave defendant written notice to quit the premises on the 14th November, 1910.
The terms of the lease are unambiguous and express the agreement of the parties, and according to their contract
Courts do not favor perpetual leases and therefore covenants to renew are generally limited to a single renewal, unless the language is so plain as to admit of no doubt of the purpose to provide for perpetual renewal, and when thus clear the covenant is binding. 4 Kent. Com., side page 109; 1 Taylor on Landlord and Tenant, (9th ed.), sec. 334; and Wash, on Real Prop., (6th ed.), sec. 674. “A definite covenant for the perpetual yearly renewal of a lease is not void.” Hoff v. Royal Metal Furniture Co., 117 App. Div. (N. Y.) 884, affirmed in 189 N. Y. 555. Although the point has not been directly passed upon by this court, the doctrine of perpetual leaseholds has been recognized in the opinions in Bowyer v. Seymour, 13 W. Va., at page 23, and in Starcher Bros. v. Duty, 61 W. Va., at page 378.
'■ A covenant to renew perpetually does not violate the rule against perpetuities. The landlord may convey his land notwithstanding his covenant, but the covenant passes with the land, and is binding on his assignee. 1 Taylor on Landlord and Tenant, sec. 262.
This ease differs materially from Hinton Foundry & Machine Co. v. Lilly Lumber Co., 73 W. Va. 477, 80 S. E. 773.
The judgment will be reversed and judgment entered here for the defendant.
Reversed, and Judgment Rendered.