Birmingham state herald. (Birmingham, Ala.) 1895-1897, 1896-04-21

days extra on the streets.
Nancy Williams, assault and battery;
IS and costs
Lulu Hill, assault and battery; So
Simon Allen, assault and battery; s5.s
VIII Austin, assault and battery; S.
Frankie Hale. larceny; SIS and thirty
days extra on the streets.
Interesting to Tenants and Landlords.
The supreme court of this state has
made the following decision by Head
Justice, which is of interest to the legal
profession and the relations existing be-
tween landlord and tenant:
The appellant defendant in the city
court of Birmingham) was a business
corporation with it's principal office In
Nashville, Tenn, and the defendant re-
sides in Atlantic, Ia.
From 1885 until the commencement of
this suiN the defendant conducted a
branch office in this city.
The court holds that the following facts
were established at the trial: One Nc
Clure was vice president of the defend
ant company and had special supervis-
ion of the Birmingham branch of the
business. He had authority to sell all
goods for cash. or on credit, and general
ly had charge of the financial interests
of said company in this state, including
bank accounts and drawing of checks
thereon, and having the usual powers
connected with the office of general man.
ager.
1t appears that this branch business
was conducted under the firm name of
James B. Hopkins & Co. until in 1889 it
was changed to the Hopkins Stove and
Roofing company, which name was con-
tinued until 1891, when it was changed to-
the Hopkins Stove and Timing company
The foregoing corporate names were
conspicuously displayed over the place
of business of said firm and their sue
cessors
The plaintiff, Whitney, was the owner
of the store house in which the business
was conducted from November 1886, but
from that time to October, 1888, the ]. B.
Hopkins company occupied the store
under lease purchased by defendant
from one Elliott, who was a lessee of
Whitneys vendor, paying rent to Whit
ney after his purchase. $500
In August, 1888, James B. Hopkins e.
Co. renewed their lease with Whitney
for three years to commence the LIST of
October, 1888, at $500 per annum. The
rent for the latter term was paid by
James B. Hopkins & Co.
In 1891 James b. Hopkins, signing Hop
kins Stove and Tinware company, re-
newed the lease for five years for $500
per year, and promissory notes were
given for payment of rent in equal
monthly installments and given contem-
poraneously with the execution of the
lease. The rents were paid until Feb
ruary ~, 1892 when the building was
partially destroyed by fire and rendered
unfit for the purpose of a mercantile
business.
There was no provision in the lease
concerning such contingency, except
when said premises are untenable by
reason of fire or from any other cause
than carelessness of the lessee
On February 20 defendant removed its
goods and paid rent up to the time of the
fire. and declined thereafter to occupy
sinh
The PLAINTIFF fully repaired the building,
and work on same began prior to the re-
moval of defendant.
One Mcclure, the agent of the defend
ant knew of the negotiations for and
the contamination of the foregoing lease
for five years, and made no objection to
the execution of the same as above set
forth; that he had full knowledge of the
business and access to all the books of
the company, and suffered all of these
matters to rest with James B. Hopkins
with his full knowledge, without inquiry
or suggestion. 80
Whitney, the plaintiff, having brought
suit for the rent accruing subsequent TO
the fire. the defendant pleads that the
lease was not his deed and that Mcclure
and Hopkins testify that the latter had
no authority to execute the lease, and
that defendant had no knowledge of the
execution until after the fire.
There is other testimony given by Nc
C1ure and Hopkins tending to show that
the president of the defendant did not
question the authority of Hopkins to
execute the lease after a consultation
with W. b. Leedy, his agent, and he
only having read, at the conference with
him, the clause in the lease as to fire.
Upon the above facts the court decides
that Hopkins was the general agent (the
vice principal of the defendant corpora
tom, and that plaintiff was not affected
by an secret limitation of authority
An eviction was claimed because plain
tiff entered upon the premises to repair
the burned building, and the court holds
that the clause in the lease implicitly
gives such authority. and that such en-
trance upon prsmises was lawful.
The above decision is of general inter-
est to all property owners as touching
the relation subsistng between pr!nci-
pal and agent In the execution Of leases
and between landlord and tenant in the