Court Opinion

ID: 9830116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:53:28.290706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:13.270061
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
We have given careful consideration to appellees’ motion for rehearing, and' to their contention that, the rent in issue was not paid by appellees and received by appellant as “advance rent.” Appellees’ propositions on this issue are overruled. The $2,000 was rent; was paid in advance as rent; was retained by appellant through the whole life of the contract as rent. That it was paid and retained in lieu of a bond is immaterial on the legal point involved. This fact constitutes nothing more than an explanation of why the rent was paid in advance, and why appellant retained it as “advance rent.” Appellees criticize most severely the rule of common law, invoked by appellant and enforced by our judgment. *881The common law is the law of this State, except where abrogated or changed by legislative enactment. The Legislature has not modified the common law as it relates to “advance rent,” and the courts have no power to abrogate it by judicial decree.
All motions for rehearing filed in this cause are overruled.