Court Opinion

ID: 9830846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:33:46.593529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:27.660485
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We have concluded that we were in error in the application of the general rule to the case ■at bar.
As argued by plaintiff in error in his motion for rehearing, there appears to be a well-established exception that in the lea-sing of rooms and apartments in buildings, a destruction of the building terminates the lease and with it the liability of the tenant for rents thereafter -accruing. 16 R. O. L. § 469, and authorities cited; 36 C. J. §1131; Jones v. Fowler Drug Co., 120 Ky. 157, 85 S. W. 721, 9 Ann. Cas. 105, note page 107; Beham v. Ghio, 75 Tex. 87, 12 S. W. 996; Japhet v. Polemanakos (Tex. Civ. App.) 160 S. W. 416.
The above authorities seem also to apply the exception in cases where the lease is for the improvements only and does not include the freehold.
If appears to us that plaintiff in error’s liability in this ease depends upon two questions, viz.: (1) Did the lease here involved convey the freehold? and (2) were the improvements completely destroyed?
Generally, a lease demising a portion of a building does not give lessee any interest in the land, beyond that directly connected with the leased apartments, as such lease is a letting of the apartments and not of the land. 36 C. J. § 628, and here the leasehold being described as a storeroom in the Sheldon Hotel Building evidently conveyed only the storeroom.
Section 355 of the Ordinances of the City of El Paso reads:
“Any building that is damaged by fire less than 50 per cent, of its value in the opinion of the City Building Inspector may be repaired with the same class of material as the original building is constructed of. If, however, in -the opinion of the City Building Inspector it is damaged more than 50% of its total value it shall be reconstructed with a type of building to conform to the Building Code, according to its location and use.”
Plaintiff in error contends that a finding by the city building inspector that the Sheldon Hotel building was damaged more than 50-per cent, of its value by the fire in view of the above ordinance was, in effect, a total destruction as a matter of law, and that by reason *227thereof, the lease between the parties terminated upon the happening of the fire.
We do not so construe the ordinance.
There is nothing in the record before us to show that the Sheldon Hotel building was ) built of a different type than that provided in the Building Code in force at the time of the fire, and we have no way of knowing whether the building could have been rebuilt of the same material used in the -original .construction.
As we view the question of whether or not, under this record, that portion of the building leased by plaintiff in error was totally destroyed, was one of fact, which the trial court was called upon to decide. .
Plaintiff in error testified as to the condition of his part of the building as did also defendant in error, and we must conclude that the trial court decided from that evidence that ■there had not been a total destruction of the demised premises.
The motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.