Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1904-01-15
Or
HAUsDoRF6 LOSES SUIT FOR
FLOUR MILL BUILDING. s

s5a$
Judge Morris Of the y 8. federal
court decided for the plaintiff II the
suit Of the Little Falls Water Power
Go. VI. n. "a. Hausdorft Of Fargo, In
volving possession Of the flour mill
formerly operated BY the Minnesota
Mill Go. Hausdord secured the lease
for the mill and water power in q
trade with F. E. Cawley two years
ago. but did not fulfill the obligations
Of the lease. Under the decision the
Water Power Co. secures complete
title and possession, and it is not likely
the building will long remain idle.
Following is the judges memorandum !:
MEMORANDUM I:
have not thought it necessary in
this case to determine the question.
whether or not the four -story brick
building erected by the Interstate
Milling company on the foundation
which was on the property at time of
the lease to said company is such 8
trade fixture as could be removed by
the lessee before the expiration of his
term, nor the further question,
whether or not the lease made to
Charles J. Cawley. and subsequently
assigned by him to Frank e. Cawley,
to defendant herein, was in effect and
by the intention of the parties thereto
a continuation of the lease held by the
Interstate Milling company, carrying
with it the same rights as to removal
Of said building as were possessed by
the said Interstate Milling company.
It seems to me to be sufficient to en-
title the complainant to decree In
this. action. that the defendant has
wholly failed to perform his part of
the contract in said lease, which was
assigned to him that he has wholly
failed to pay any rent Hereunder,
and never has. and does now propose
to pay said rent or any part thereof,
except on condition that he be per-
mitted to remove said building; and
that by reason Of his default in the
performance Of the covenants and
agreements by him to be performed
under said lease. the complainant has.
prior to the commencement of this
action, in accordance with the terms
of said lease, re-entered upon the
said premises and re- possessed itself of
its former estate therein, thereby
terminating said lease. The defendant
cannot be permitted to come in
to court of equity under these condi-
tions. and say to the court, flor that is
what his contention and position is
equivalent to- "While have never
paid any rent under this lease, and
do not propose to pay said rent, or
any part thereof, unless the complain
ant or the court will first say that
have right to remove the building
erected thereon from the premises.
and will permit such removals, and
while have go acted that complain
ant has had the right under the lease
to re-enter said premises and termin-
ate said lease, and has done 80. and
while do not expect to continue said
lease and 60 on with the payment of
the rent reserved therein, yet if the
court will say that I can remove said
building, or will give me judgement
against complaint and for the value
thereof, Il will. pay said rent up to the
time of the entry of said Judgment,
or up to the time when I have COM
pleted said removal, and I therefore
ask that the court so decree. Before
the defendant can claim any right
under the contract, either in law or
equity, he must perform his part of
the contract.
Morris, Judge.