Case ID: us-ct-cl_63/html/0657-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Campbell, Chief Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GEORGE W. LEECH v. THE UNITED STATES
    [No. F-103.
    Decided June 6, 1927]
    
      On the Proofs
    
    
      Lease; occupancy after expiration; rental. — The defendant, occupying plaintiff’s premises as a post office three months after-expiration of a ten-year lease, held entitled to reasonable-compensation for such occupancy.
    
      The Reporters statement of the case:
    
      Mr. Elwood C. Weeks for the plaintiff.
    
      Mr. W. W. Scott, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Herman J. Galloway, for the defendant.
    The court made special findings of fact, as follows:
    I. George W. Leech, plaintiff, a resident of Pleasantville,. New Jersey, has at all times borne true allegiance to the-United States of America and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion-against said Government.
    II. Plaintiff, during the period extending from September 9, 1925, to December 7, 1925, both inclusive, and at all times herein mentioned was, and still is, the owner of the-lands, premises, and equipment used by defendant from, September 9, 1925, to December 7, 1925, both inclusive, for conducting a United States post office in the city of Pleasant-ville, Atlantic County, New Jersey.
    Said premises were known as “ a certain room, thirty feet by sixty-five feet, inside measurement, on the first floor of the three-story and cellar concrete and brick premises known as Nos. 2 and 4 North Main Street, situated on the northeast corner of North Main Street and Washington Avenue, on lot 1 of block 103, in said city, of Pleasantville.”
    111. Said post-office room was fitted and supplied by plaintiff with a complete equipment of boxes, fixtures, and furniture for the use of the post office, with city, rural-delivery, parcel-post, and postal-savings furniture, together with necessary heat and light, heating and lighting fixtures, and requisite water-closets, urinals, water, and a fireproof safe with burglar-proof chest.
    IY. Prior to September 9, 1925, the defendant occupied said premises under a ten-year rental lease from plaintiff, which expired on September 8, 1925; under said lease plaintiff was to furnish heat and light and post-office furniture and fixtures for conducting a post office therein; the rental fixed in said lease was $1,200 per year, payable quarterly.
    Y. Prior to the expiration of said lease the Government called for bids for premises to be rented and used as a post office after the termination of said lease which resulted in the Government renting premises other than those belonging to plaintiff. At the expiration of said lease plaintiff communicated with the postmaster at Pleasantville as to what rental the Government intended to pay him while the Government occupied his premises pending the completion of their new quarters. Within two weeks after the termination of said lease plaintiff served notice in writing for the defendant to vacate his said premises. Plaintiff and defendant conducted negotiations, but reached no agreement as to the amount of rental to be paid plaintiff for the occupation by defendant of said premises during the period between the expiration of said lease and its removal to its new post-office quarters.
    
      VI. After the expiration of said rental lease the defendant continued to occupy said premises, awaiting the completion of its new quarters, and conducted a post office therein from September 9, 1925, until December 7, 1925, both inclusive, during which time plaintiff furnished no light — the necessary light for conducting said post office being furnished and paid for by defendant.
    VII. During said three-month period, from .September 9, 1925, to December 7, 1925, inclusive, plaintiff received no ■compensation for the rental of said premises, fixtures, equipment, and heat, the reasonable value of which was $825 per month, or a total of $975 for said three-month period ending December 7, 1925.
    The court decided that plaintiff was entitled to recover.
   Campbell, Chief Justice,

delivered the opinion of the -court:

This case was submitted upon the report of the commissioner to whom it was referred by appropriate order for a report of the facts. There is no exception by either party to this report, and the court adopts it for its special findings of fact. These shoAv that the Government had a lease on certain property of the plaintiff which was used as a post office. The lease was for ten years, expiring September 9, 1925. Prior to the termination of the lease steps were taken to secure quarters for the post office, with the result that another place was chosen. There was delay, however, in the completion of the new quarters, and the Government continued in possession of plaintiff’s property until December 7, 1925, about three months after the lease terminated. The only material question in the case is what amount should be paid by the Government in the circumstances stated. The commissioner finds that the Government should pay $975 for the period mentioned, and judgment will be entered accordingly. And it is so ordered.

Moss, Judge; Hat, Judge; and Booth, Judge, concur.

Geaham, Judge, took no part in the decision of this case.