Case Name: Adkins v. Remmel
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1927-01-31
Citations: 172 Ark. 789
Docket Number: 
Parties: Adkins v. Remmel.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 172
Pages: 789–792

Head Matter:
Adkins v. Remmel.
Opinion delivered January 31, 1927.
Sam T. & Tom Poe, for appellant.
Frauenthal <& Johnson, for appelleé.

Opinion:
Kirby, J.,
(after stating the facts). Appellant urges that the finding of the court below is not supported by the evidence, and that there was a failure of consideration, in any event, of the notes executed by him in payment for the tile floor in appellee's own building, and from which he received no benefit whatever.
The testimony is in conflict as to the date the repairs on the building were completed, that of the lessor tending to show that it was ready for occupancy on June 18,1923, while some of the other testimony indicated it was not finished until in August. It is not disputed, however, that the parties made an adjustment on July 1, 1923, of the amount of the rent due under the lease contract, allowing the lessee the credits he was entitled to for being deprived of the use of the building on account of the fire during the period of repair, and agreement as to the amount of the cost of the tile floor. The lessee, Adkins, at that time executed the notes aggregating the amount of the floor cost, payable in installments of $22.52 per month, all being due at once upon failure to pay either of them, the first falling due August 1,1923.
Appellant knew the condition of the building and the status of the repairs at the time, and made no objection to the work nor claim that it had not been completed in time, or was not ready for occupancy, his first claim of the breach of contract being made by letter on August 1, 1923.
The supplemental agreement giving appellant a reasonable time to repair and restore the premises, expressing that it was expected to be done within ninety days from March 8, 1923, did not bind appellee conclusively to complete it by the expiration of that time, being an esti mate rather of the time that would be required, and no objection was made, at the time of the agreement of settlement, of the amount of the rent due and the cost of the tile floor on account of it not being sooner completed, and appellant also afterwards put a card in the window advertising the store-room for rent, and directing persons to apply to him therefor.
If the condition of the repairs and the failure to make same within the time it was thought they could be completed, or the putting in of an elevator shaft additional, that appellant contends he did not consent to, had warranted appellant in refusing further to perform his contract on account of a breach thereof by the appellee, the lessor, he waived such right by the agreement of settlement abating or allowing him credit for the amount of the rent accruing during the period of repairs, and the execution of the notes in payment for the tile floor. Neither can we say that the finding of the chancellor in appellee's favor is clearly against the preponderance of the testimony.
By the terms of the lease a lien was created upon certain personal property, and there was no error in the decree holding that it was bound to the payment of the rent found to be due to the time the building was rented to another tenant, after appellant's refusal to occupy it.
The facts of this case do not bring it within the rule announced in Berman v. Shelby, 93 Ark. 472, 125 S. W. 124. We find no error in the decree, and it is accordingly affirmed.