Court Opinion

ID: 8035760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 03:20:37.970731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:37:07.526284
License: Public Domain

Rose, J.,
dissenting.
The premises in controversy were leased in writing for the specific use and single purpose of a filling station where petroleum products of plaintiff were to be kept and sold. It was so understood by the parties to the lease. Plaintiff tendered each month the stipulated monthly rental of $25 and never claimed or received any income from the blacksmith shop. The income therefrom was paid to and accepted by lessors. Without fraud of any kind the parties to the lease contracted for a monthly rental of $25, which was lawful compensation for the use of the leased premises and the improvements the lessors agreed to make. The consideration stated was within the contracting power of the parties. The léase was formally drawn, executed, acknowledged, delivered *20and registered. Through the agency of lessors the petroleum products of plaintiff were in fact kept and sold for a time on the leased premises—what was contemplated by the parties. As I view the evidence, all parties to the lease understood and performed it at first with plaintiff constructively in possession of the demised premises. Defendant dispossessed plaintiff, and thus violated his duty as agent under the lease, interfered with his employer’s present and future business, and destroyed contractual and property rights of his principal. To prevent the continuance of such wrongs injunction is the proper remedy, as formerly held in this identical case. Standard Oil Co. v. O’Hare, 122 Neb. 89. That the former decision is sound and supported by precedent, see Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Ford, 255 Mich. 105, 83 A. L. R. 1413, and note. Delay of plaintiff in formally accepting the offer of agency did not destroy the property rights created by the lease. Services of the agent, performed for plaintiff and accepted pursuant to the terms of the contract of employment, waived prompt acceptance of the offer of agency, if delayed. The option of plaintiff to terminate the lease upon 30 days’ notice did not invalidate it, since it created an estate for a fixed term of years. Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Ford, 255 Mich. 105, 83 A. L. R. 1413, and cases cited in note. Whether considered as a unit or as two instruments, the lease and the contract of agency were duly executed, delivered, valid agreements, as I view them in the light of the evidence and the mutual understanding of the parties in the first instance. Entertaining these views, I dissent from the affirmance.
Day, J., concurs in dissent.