The Coconino sun., 1927-11-18
SUPREME COURT RULING
GIVES MRS. HALL CHARGE
OF HOTEL WEATHERFORD

The state supreme court on Monday
denied the request of j. w. Weather
ford for a rehearing in the Hall
Weatherford case, which it decided
last month in favor of Mrs. Lula R..
Hall, reversing the decision of the
local court made in October, 1925.
By this denial for a rehearing Mrs.
Hall is given control of Hotel Wealth
erford owned and operated by Mr..
and Mrs. John Weatherford. G. b.
Wilson of this city was Mrs. Halls
attorney. E. S. Clark of Phoenix,
was attorney for the Weatherfords.
Frank Harrison of Flagstaff was as
sociated in the case with Mr.. Clark
until appeal was taken.
This case will be published by the
American Law Reports, Annotated,
which publishes leading cases of the
country. The l-Weatherford case
decides three very interesting points:
first, the question of estoppel; second,
the question of validity of clause in
a lease granting a renewal at rental
to be. agreed upon by the parties to
the lease and another technical legal
point.
Mrs. Hall in 1919 leased the Wealth
eFIOTQ 0OCS1 lOI live years 4AOIt AAetJ
z, 1920, at a rental of $4,000, to
contribute $4,000 to improvements to
the property, said improvements
eventually to revert to the Weather
fords, and to keep the hotel in repair.
She was also to provide all furniture
required for the operation of the
hotel, but this furniture was to re-
main her property. The lease included
this clause:
at is further agreed that the party
of the second part upon the expiration
of this lease shall have the option to
renew the same for a like period at a
price to be agreed upon, and shall
have the preference right to the same
at any price which may be agreed
upon by the party of the first part:
Mrs. Weatherford did not sign this
original lease, but was present when
it was read and discussed by her hus-
band and Mrs. Hall and was also pres
ent when they signed it.
Some months before the lease ex-
pired Mrs. Hall took up the question
of renewal with Mr.. and Mrs. Wealth
erford. Mrs. Weatherford strenu-
ously objected to renewal. She con-
tended that the property was COM
munity property and that since she
did not sign the lease of 1919 1t was
void and in no manner binding on
her; that Mrs Hall was tenant at
will and could be removed from the
premises at any time.
Mr.. Weatherford signed the re-
newal of the lease for another five
years, and Mrs. Hall entered upon
the second rental term beginning IN
May, 1925.
Shortly thereafter the Weather
fords brought suit to recover posses
sion of the hotel, on the ground that,
it being community property, and the
lease not having been signed by Mrs.
Weatherford, the lease was valid only
at the pleasure of Mr.. and Mrs.
Weatherford.
Judge ]. E. Jones in superior court
here in October, 1925, sustained the
claims of the Weatherfords and over
ruled motion of Mrs. Halls attorney,
G. B. Wilson, for a new trial Where
upon in March, 1926, the appeal was
taken to the state supreme court,
Attorney Wilson claiming seven points
of error in connection with the trial
of the case here.
Mr.. and Mrs. Hugh Weatherford,
son anu VI ~. e@AAN~
Mrs. John Weatherford, are manag-
ing the hotel. When Mrs. Hall relin-
quished possession under order of su-
perior court she stored the hotel fur
nishings, all of which belonged to
her. Soon afterward she assumed
management of the Beale hotel at
Kingman, where she is now. She owns
and operates the Kinlani store and
apartment building in this city, the
stores being occupied by the j. Y.
Penney Co. and the Pay'n Takit gro
Whether Mrs. Hall will decide to
take over the Weatherford hotel again
is not at this time known here.
The question of damages resulting
from being deprived of the hotel
since being ousted, does not enter into
the supreme court decisions.