Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantverdictlease
plaintiffdefendantappealverdictlease

Related Cases

Wilmot v. State of New York, 33 N.Y.2d 657, 303 N.E.2d 710, 348 N.Y.S.2d 1030 (Table)
View Case »
National Land & Inv. Co. v. Kohn, 419 Pa. 504, 215 A.2d 597
View Case »
Katz v. United States, 476 U.S. 1159, 106 S.Ct. 2277 (Mem), 90 L.Ed.2d 720
View Case »
Noyes v. Horr, 13 Iowa 570, 1862 WL 225
View Case »
Pumpelly v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co., 80 U.S. 166, 1871 WL 14853, 20 L.Ed. 557, 13 Wall. 166
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Brown v. International Land Co., 29 Okla. 341, 116 P. 799, 1911 OK 249

Facts

On November 25, 1905, the International Land Company leased 160 acres of land to W. H. Hall for four years, with a rental of $100 per year. Hall assigned the lease to W. H. Brown, who paid rent for 1907 but not thereafter. In January 1908, the husband of the allottee moved into the premises without consent, and Brown did not take action to regain possession. The International Land Company denied any duty to restore Brown's possession, leading to the lawsuit.

The evidence of the plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, discloses the following facts: On the 25th day of November, 1905, the defendant, as lessor, made a lease to W. H. Hall, as lessee, covering 160 acres of land in what is now Muskogee county, the lease to run for four years; the stipulated rental was $100 a year, payable on the 1st day of November of each year, commencing in the year of 1906.

Issue

Did the court below commit error in directing the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendant, and in rendering a judgment thereon?

The only question presented to us for review is, Did the court below, under the facts above disclosed, commit error in directing the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendant, and in rendering a judgment thereon?

Rule

To sustain an action for the breach of a covenant for quiet enjoyment, the plaintiff must show that he has been prevented from taking possession or that his quiet enjoyment has been disturbed by the lessor or someone deriving title through him, not by a mere intruder.

To sustain an action for the breach of an absolute or unlimited covenant for quiet enjoyment, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show that he has been prevented from taking possession, or has been evicted, by a person having a lawful and paramount title existing at the time of the defendant's covenant, as this covenant for quiet enjoyment applies only to the acts of those claiming title at the time it was entered into.

Analysis

The court determined that the covenant in question was effectively a covenant for quiet enjoyment, which does not protect the tenant from disturbances caused by strangers. The evidence presented did not establish that the disturbance was caused by someone with a lawful and paramount title, as the husband of the lessor did not claim such a right.

The court determined that the covenant in question was effectively a covenant for quiet enjoyment, which does not protect the tenant from disturbances caused by strangers.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that the evidence did not establish a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Who won?

International Land Company prevailed because the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment.

The judgment appealed from was the result of a verdict of the jury, which was directed by the court, upon the ground that the evidence of the plaintiff did not establish any cause of action against the defendant, for the reason that it failed to show that there had been a breach of the covenant sued upon.

You must be