Court Opinion

ID: 9828913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:50:45.594313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:54.424756
License: Public Domain

Oh Motion for Rehearing.
[11] While the contract upon which this suit is based partakes more of the nature of a lease than a partnership, it is lacking in some of the essential elements necessary to constitute a leasehold estate in appellants to any portion of the space occupied by it in appellee’s building. In so far as the 10 feet of window space is concerned, there was no designated part of the show window set apart to appellant. The 10 feet of space that it was permitted to use was not even required under the terms of the lease to be continuously in one part of the window, and the allotment of the space might have been changed from time to time to conform to the convenience of the parties or the interest of their respective businesses.
Such being the character of the right acquired by the appellant, we think the trial court was correct in holding that it was a mere license to use the space so long as appellant continued to occupy and use the ¡other designated portions of the building allotted to it under the terms of the contract.
In so far as the other portions of the building allotted to appellant is concerned, it cannot be said that the contract gave a leasehold estate therein in a technical sense. Appellant had no absolute dominion there-over, and could only use it under appellee’s direction. It had no access to the building except at such times as appellee should open it for the purpose of carrying on its business. Section 17 of the contract provides;
“The time for opening and closing the business carried on as herein contemplated shall be controlled by the rules and regulations of *274the said lessor, and the giving out and control of the keys shall be governed exclusively by the said lessor.”
Under this view of the contract it necessarily follows that appellant is not entitled to any compensation from the appellee for the value of the window space used by ap-pellee after appellant breached its contract.
It also follows that the rule against subletting rented premises without the consent of the owner has no application..
With these additional reasons for overruling appellant’s assignment raising the question indicated, we adhere to the conclusion expressed in our main opinion, and appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.