Court Opinion

ID: 9866136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 00:28:23.739174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:12:56.236686
License: Public Domain

JANVIER, Judge
(dissenting).
I believe that Civil Code, articles 2697 to 2700, inclusive, have no application to the facts of this case.
I direct attention to two things:
First. Tbe sign was in no way damaged by tbe fire which occurred inside tbe building, and its use was in no way impeded or impaired except as tbe result of tbe fact that defendant chose to abandon tbe premises on which tbe sign was located.
Second. Defendant bad provided tbe location for the sign, and plaintiff bad nothing to do with tbe selection of tbe said location.
A most inequitable result has been arrived at in tbe majority opinion. Plaintiff constructed tbe sign especially for defendant and will suffer a substantial loss merely, because defendant preferred to abandon tbe premises on which it was located rather than to suffer tbe slight inconvenience of moving to another location for a short time.
My associates feel that, because in article 2699 it is provided that if tbe use of property leased is impaired or impeded because a neighbor raises bis walls and cuts off tbe light tbe tenant has tbe right to annul the lease, in this case tbe tenant had tbe right to cancel tbe lease of the sign. I can see the reason for the provision that if I own a piece of real estate which I lease to a tenant and a neighbor erects another building or a wall, which he has a right to erect, my tenant is within his rights in moving, but that is because I, the owner of the building, am unfortunate in owning a building so located; but in the case at bar the location of the sign was chosen entirely by the defendant and, in the contract, defendant agreed to maintain the right to keep the sign located at that place; in this obligation the defendant has failed by voluntarily abandoning the premises.
I respectfully dissent.