New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-05-15
Fifth District Court.

Judge Cuilom rendered the following decision:
Miguel Avendano vs.. l. W. Arthur 4 Co. The
on Front Common and Fulton streets, in this CITY,
from October !. 1871, to thirtieh OF September,
They went into the premises and remained there
for a period of one year. VIII en- they notified the
plaintiff OF their intention to vacate them. There
is no serious difficulty as to the evidence of the
agreement between Il them touching the lease and
its duration. The defendants, however, refused to
sign the written evidence Of contract Of lease,
although frequently requested 30 to do. The
plaintiffs evidence showing that he did not de-
cline to sign the act Ofease but objected to signing
advance. Defendant, l. ". Arthur, states that he
absolutely refused to sign the lease, because the
premises needed repairs which we've necessary for
plaintiff neglected and refused to make.
The evidence shows that the shed leaked badly
and also the roof Of the main building; that Avea.
pairs necessary, some Of which were made
% to be % made, which the ' lessor 4eH declined % to
make. And it also shows that during the year
the defendants occupied the premises they ex.
ments on the premises. The plaintiff now de-
mands payment for the entire lease. and the de-
tSs are not for it.
there is no dispute about the real CONT act of
lease Mr.. Arthur states that he agreed to take
but that he subsequently refused to sign the
written act, because they needed repairs which
AvondanO neglected and declined to make. There
was but one proposition made and accepted con-
cerning the rent, and that is the sued on. The
defendants did unequivOcally accept it by taking
and remaining on the premises for nearly one
year. The refusal to sign the act he having taken
possession, was not a reputation Of the contract.
The fact of taking possession after the terms had
No other conclusion is rational. Article 1852
Civil Code declares that the contract must not be
confouDded with the Instrument in writing by
which it is witne ssed. The contract may subsst
although the written may, for some defect, be de-
clared void.
O. Because think the defendants regard them
selves as bound. Why would they have expended
about S 1000 on the premises, in addition to paying
the rent. and that too without demanding it's sub
traction from the rental Dues if they believed they
were not entitled to them for the term Of years
agreed upon! This simple fact leads to no Other
conclusion than that they regarded the verbal un
derstanding binding, and is in its Eature an &C
ceptance, ratification of it. 1t can not be 9th r
wise explained. Hen, page 10l. No. q Civil Code
2272, section two Bonneaus vs.: Poydras r. l
$40; 3R, III; r. 1913; An, 1862; An. ATS; An.
al; 10 An, COL, 69l Ii An, ll3
3. Because the lessor was bound, the lessees hav
ing accepted his terms and taken possession, tt
maintain the premises in condition such as tt
serve for the use for which they were hired o.
rented. Civil Code 2692 section two. And If h
failed to do so, it the privilege of tie lessees t.
cause all such necessary repairs to be made frs
giving ice to the lessor aud to deduct the price
from the rent due proving that the repairs wert
indispensable, and that the price which they pale
was Just and reasonable. Civil Code 1884 Wester
mier We. street, 81 An, ia.