Court Opinion

ID: 9580508
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:05:39.326611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:19.382476
License: Public Domain

HANSON, Presiding Judge
(dissenting).
By written lease, dated July 31, 1952, plaintiff leased the following portions of the nine-storied National Bank of South Dakota Building to the National Bank of South Dakota for a term ending December, 1972:
"The banking room, now and heretofore occupied by lessee, upon the first or ground floor of said building, (including the balcony in the upper north part of 'said banking room; the Directors' room in the upper east part of said banking room; and that part of the east portion of the basement which is connected with said banking room and has been used therewith, including vaults and toilets);
"The money chests now situated on the north side of the vault in said banking room and all built-in bank fixtures and equipment in said banking room belonging to lessor;
"The suites heretofore known as Nos. 201 and 202, being the rooms and space on the balcony level at the front or Phillips Avenue side of said building * * * and the space heretofore known as suites 200A and 201A upon the second floor of the annex or eastern addition of said building, comprising 1532 square feet, being all of the second floor of the building;
"The basement space * * *.
"Ingress and egress to all the foregoing parts of the demised premises for the purpose of lessee's business and for all incidental purposes, over the existing ways and means, including elevator service as needed."
*106The upper seven iloors of the building are used as offices and are leased to other tenants. The Bank's lease contains the following provision:
"Lessee will use the demised premises for the purposes of its banking and trust business and such other and incidental business as shall be lawful."
To construe this provision of the lease as descriptive or permissive is to render it meaningless. The language of the lease is not the only manifestation of the parties' intention. Extrinsic factors such as the character of the premises and conduct of the parties may also be considered. When a farmer agrees in a lease to use agricultural property as a farm I believe he is restricted to that use. Similarly, when the National Bank of South Dakota agrees to use the banking rooms in the National Bank of South Dakota Building for "the purposes of its banking and trust business and such other and incidental business as shall be lawful" it also is restricted to that use. This was the conclusion of the Hon. Roy D. Burns, arrived at by the following persuasive reasoning in his memorandum opinion:
"The words 'may use' are permissive. The words 'must use' are restrictive. Had the use been stated for banking purposes 'only' or 'exclusively' or 'not otherwise' the restrictive intent would have been clear. But the parties used the words 'will use.' In view of the construction of the leased premises for banking purposes, their peculiar adaptability for such purpose, the negotiations had between the parties including letters indicating the intention of the parties, I construe the words 'will use' as restrictive and that the Bank in its use of the premise is restricted to the use thereby 'for the purposes of its banking and trust business and such other and incidental business as shall be lawful.' "
This conclusion is fortified by the following statute which was not cited or argued by either party:
SDC 38.0419 "If premises are leased for a particular and specified purpose the tenant must not use the *107premises for other purposes; and if he does, the landlord may hold him responsible for the safety of the premises during such use, at all events, or he may treat the contract as thereby rescinded."
Furthermore, the lease does not contain the usual prohibition against assigning or subletting the premises without consent of the owner. It would be unnecessary under a restrictive use clause. But when this clause is construed to be descriptive, the lessee may sublease the premises to whomsoever it pleases for whatsoever purpose without regard to the owner's interest or consent.
I would affirm.