Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-05-20
COURT DECISIONS.
DlGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
VlRcINlAN.PILOT.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
KING ". WILSON.


Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,
March 90. 1900.
WHERE LAND WAS LEASED FOR
OR 10 YEARS. WITH PRIVILEGE
OF RENEWAL. AND LESSEE RE-
NAMED IN POSSESSION. WITH
OUT a NEW AGREEMENT. AFTER
A RENEWAL OF 10 YEARS. THE
LESSEE WAS THEREAFTER A
TENANT ONLY FROM YEAR TO
YEAR
WHERE SUCH LEASE PROVIDED
THAT IT WAS "RENEWABLE, OR
PAY FOR THE IMPROVEMENT
AT THEIR VALUATION" THE
LESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO
THE VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS,
If THERE WAS A RENEWAL OF
THE LEASE.
This was an action of unlawful de-
tainer TO recover possession OF leased
premises. From a judgment for plain
tiff. defendant appealed.
The Court says:
The parties to this controversy claim
under lease dated July /, 1856 BY this
contract the lot in question, situated on
High street. in the city of Portsmouth,
was leased for one year or ten years at
$50 per annum, with the following pro-
vision: Renewable. or pay for the i'm
provements at their valuation"
This action of unlawful detainer was
brought by the defendant in error to
recover the premises from the plaintiff
in error, who holds possession under
the original lease.
In constituting this lease two questions
are presented. % What is the extent
of the tenancy of the lessee? And (2)
Is the lessee. at the end of such tenan-
cy. entitled to recover the value of the
| improvements made?
| Under the terms of the contract the
lessee held. as he had n right to do, for
| ten years, thus making the first term
expire with June 30, 1866. Under the
covenant for renewal he continued in
possession of the premises another ten
| years. making the second term expire
with June 30. 1876. Since the expiration
OF the second term the lessee has re-
manned in possession of the premises,
without any new agreement, until the
present time.
| 1t is we'll settled that general cove
nant for renewal. such as the one in
question. does not imply perpetual re-
newal. The most n lessor is bound to
| give on such a covenant Is n renewal
for one term only A different con-
struction would virtually lead to n
| grant in perpetuity.
Where n landlord allows a tenant FOR
a term Of years to hold over after the
expiration of his term. without any new
agreement. he becomes tenant from
year to year. and the law presumes the
holding to be upon the terms of the
former lease. so far as they are appli-
cable to his new situation.
We. therefore. hold that the plaintiff
is In possession of the premises in ques-
ton as tenant from year to year, and
that the defendant in error had the
right. at the end of any year since such
yearly tenancy began. to demand the
premises upon giving the notice re-
| Quircd by law.
The second question involves the
! light of the lessee. at the end of his
! tenancy, to recover the value OF the i'm
provements made upon the premises.
The language of the lease is Renew
| able, or pay for the improvements"
1t Is clear from the language that at
the end of the first term of ten years
the lessor was under obligation either
to renew the lease for another term of
ten years. or to pay for the improve
ments. He could not be required to do
| both. Had there been no renewal the
lessee would have been entitled to the
value tn, improvements utMhan
| the lease was renewed for the second
| term the contract to pay for the i'm
prcvements was thereby satisfied.
| We hold, therefore. tnat the defend
ant in error was entitled to recover the
premises in question. including the i'm
provements. discharged of all obliga-
ton to pay for the value of such i'm
| prOvements
1t follows from what has been said
! that the instruction given for the de-
PENDANT in error correctly stated the
law, and that the two Instructions Of
fcred by the plaintiff in error were
properly rejected.
For those reasons the Judgment must
be affirmed.
OWENS v. BERKELEY.
Court Of Appeals Of Kentucky.
March 90 1900.
EVIDENCE OF THE PECUNIARY
CONDITION OF THE DEFENDANT
IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN AN AC-
TION FOR ASSAULT AND BAT
Terry, THOUGH THE CASE IS ONE
IN WHICH PUNATIVE DAMAGES