National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-05-20
THE MARKET MEN.
They Win Their Fight With the Company
Decision of Justice Robinson.


Justice Robinson yesterday rendered decision
in the case of the Washington Market Company
vs.. Emanuel L. Lancas er, Messrs. Merrick and
Elliott appearing for defendant and Messrs. Biz.
ney, Chandler and Bradley for plaintiff. This is
the first of the series Of cases brought by the mar
ket company against the dealers, claiming right
under the landlord and circuit act to eject defend
ants for non-payment Of rent for stalls occupied
by them. The decision of Justice Robinson covers
case. AS the company claim in the writ Of sum-
mons the possession Of tenement" and prem
Uses, the Justice first defined the terms, tenant"
and tenement" 1t was clear he said that the
remedy of the market company was not within
the puryiew Of the landlord and tenant act, be-
cause after the corporate government OF the mayor
and Boards Of Alderman and Common Council
became functuS obfciO and were succeeded by
the Territorial government, it was clear that the
GovCrEor had no right under the charter OF the
company, merely upon his iPse Dirt without the
consent Of the House Of Delegates, which neces-
sarily succeeded Common Council, to establish a
minimum for
RENT OF THE STALLS.
After the rejcctment by the United States Sen
purTieW Of the landlord and tepaRt act Of JUN
1864, the market company, as appeared from the
evidence, changed the character of its receipt for
rent, to which the dealers demurred because 1t
contained the following condition: ITO be &C.
counted for according to the legal rights and OBJ
legations Of the payer and the market company
in the meantime none Of said rights or obligations
to be waived or affected by said payment or its
reception" The clerk would not receive Ian
casters money because he (Lancaster) would not
sign this receipt. The defendant cannot be
elected under the landlord and tenant act, be-
cause the company are mere agents Of the United
States and bound to act within the prescribed
limits Of their chartered rights. The remedy Of
the market company was not within the purTieW
OF the landlord and tenant act, but at common
law, from the TACT that the charter Of the COM
pany compelled them to sell their stalls at auc-
uon, to the highest bidder, for a pOssessionary
right which was bonus for the privilege con-
ierred, and the regulations Of the company m ade
II necessary, before possession could be taken,
that permit should be given to that effect and
after possession then followed the minimum
price, which was final. The company claimed the
right OF reselling the stalls at the end Of every
two years. No principle IN law could apply to
such a construction, because the payment Of the
bonus conferred possessiOnary rig which could
not be affected so long as the rentees complied
with their obligations to the market company by
PAYING THEIR RENT.
If the market company were to sell their stalls
every two years for bonus, the original contract
at the first selling would still be binding upon
them for the protection of all legal interes S
carved out Of the first, and the company would
st II be bound to both the letter and spirit of the
charter which did not bring 1t within the land.
lord-andt tenant act This controversy was one oil
construction as to the exercise of the company's
pose OF avoiding the payment Of rents. The CON-
Psny could not be viewed in the light of land
lord, from the fret that it had no authority ex.
cept what is prescribed by its charter, and was
not within the purview Of the northumberland
act. Judge Wylie's decision in the Hoffman case
could not be msappreheuded, from the very fact
that he had granted an injunction.
In conclusion, the Justice said that, after having
reviewed the whole subject with An earnest desire
70 reach just conclusions, he had nothing lett to
do but to render judgment for the defendant, with
costs Of suit on the plaintiff.
1t is not yet decided among the counselin these
cases IN what manner TO proceed with the other
nineteen cases. The counsel for plaintiff claim
that there are circumstances connected with some
OF the others which materially change their char
acter.