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

appealwilllease

plaintiffdefendantappealwillleasestatutory law

Related Cases

Gamble v. New Orleans Housing Mart, Inc., 154 So.2d 625

Facts

Cameron B. Gamble leased a portion of the New Orleans Housing Mart Building from New Orleans Housing Mart, Inc. During the lease, he found a subtenant, L. J. Roy, who was willing to sublease under the same terms. Gamble applied for written consent to sublease, but the lessor refused, not because Roy was unacceptable, but to lease other space to Roy directly. Gamble contended this refusal constituted a breach of the lease, leading to his action for cancellation.

The pertinent allegations of the petition, accepted as true for the purpose of deciding the exception, are as follows: Plaintiff leased from defendant a portion of the ground floor area of the New Orleans Housing Mart Building in the City of New Orleans. During the lease term he obtained a subtenant, L. J. Roy, who was willing and able to sublease the premises for the same rent and under the same terms and conditions as contained in the original lease.

Issue

Did the lessor have the right to arbitrarily refuse consent to a sublease when the proposed subtenant was acceptable?

Rule

Under LSA-Civil Code Art. 2725, a lessee has the right to sublease unless expressly prohibited, and any prohibition is strictly construed against the lessee.

The statutory law concerning the right of a tenant to sublease is to be found in LSA-Civil Code Art. 2725: 'The lessee has the right to underlease, or even to cede his lease to another person, unless this power has been expressly interdicted.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the lease provision that required written consent for subleasing and determined that it did not prohibit subleasing outright. Since the lessor had accepted Roy as a tenant after refusing the sublease, the court concluded that the lessor could not unreasonably withhold consent when the subtenant was satisfactory.

Under those allegations the defendant did not have the right to refuse to give permission to sublease.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, indicating that the lessor's refusal to consent to the sublease was unjustified.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the case is remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans for further proceedings according to law and not inconsistent with the views expressed herein; all costs to await final determination.

Who won?

Cameron B. Gamble prevailed in the case because the court found that the lessor's refusal to consent to the sublease was arbitrary and not supported by the facts.

Chasez, J., dissented.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Brock v. Dole, 66 Wis. 142, 28 N.W. 334

Hahn v. Hagar, 153 A.D.3d 105, 60 N.Y.S.3d 49, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 05710

National Bank of Commerce in Memphis v. United States, 340 U.S. 822, 71 S.Ct. 55 (Mem), 95 L.Ed. 604

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668, 5 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 965, 5 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8607

Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn., 8 Cal.4th 361, 878 P.2d 1275, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 63, 63 USLW 2157