Opinion ID: 1720988
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: comparison of the leases

Text: Both leases between the Stinsons and Johnston contained positive prohibitions against subletting or assigning without the written consent of the lessor. Both Johnston leases restrict his farming operations to raising and harvesting soybeans. The Williamson lease contains the following provision about crops the lessee could raise: THE PURPOSE of this lease is for the planting, raising and harvesting soybeans, however, Lessee may double crop in any crop of his choice but rental will continue on the basis set out above. (Emphasis added) As to hunting, the December 27, 1977, Johnston lease states the following: All hunting and/or fishing rights and privileges are hereby reserved by Lessors and excepted from this lease, with the understanding that Lessee and members of his immediate family may enjoy these rights so long as they follow rules and regulations set out by the Mississippi Game and Fish Commission. The Farmers Home Administration lease between the Stinsons and Johnston states the following about hunting and fishing: 1. Reservation of land and buildings.  The landlord reserves the right to use the following land and buildings for the following purposes: ... All hunting & fishing rights ... The Williamson lease states the following relative to hunting and fishing rights: All hunting rights and privileges are hereby granted unto Lessee, with the understanding that Lessors, Glen A. Stinson and Glen Ellis Stinson together with two friends reserve hunting rights and privileges for themselves. Lessee to enjoy said rights so long as he follows rules and regulations set out by the Mississippi Game and Fish Commission. The Farmers Home Administration lease with Johnston provides for a $20,000 yearly cash rental to be paid by November 15 of each year. The Williamson lease provides for an annual cash rental of $32,500 for the first three years, which would cover the three years remaining on the Johnston lease, and $40,000 annual rental for the two years following. Williamson was also given the option to renew the lease for an additional five-year period beginning January 1, 1985, at an annual cash rental of $45,000. At trial no proof was offered by Johnston as to how the Stinsons' letter of December 4, 1979, had injured him, or caused him any loss of profits or other loss. One witness for the Stinsons testified that the land being cultivated by Johnston was not farmed as well as the Stinsons' farm operations. At trial's conclusion, the chancellor ruled the Stinsons had breached their lease contract with Johnston, but that he had proved only nominal damages and would be awarded a monetary judgment and costs. The pertinent portion of the chancellor's opinion reads: The next question is the issue of damages. The Court is of the opinion that the Complainant should be entitled to damages as against the Defendants for the breach of the lease or leases. However, the record is absent as to any proof of damages by competent evidence and with reasonable certainty. While the admission of the Williamson lease contains a declaration against interest on the part of the Defendants, there is no competent evidence to show the Court the difference of the fair market value of the Johnston lease as compared to the fair market value of the Williamson lease in the face of the variables and the differences in the leases as to (1) the right to double crop, (2) the right to extend the lease, and (3) the hunting rights granted therein. An assessment of damages on the evidence presented would be speculative and conjectural. Johnston appealed from the decree awarding him $1.00 nominal damages. The Stinsons did not cross-appeal.