Grimes v. Gaughan

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Grimes v. Gaughan

152 N.W. 653, 129 Minn. 537, 1915 Minn. LEXIS 763

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 14, 1915

DocketNos. 19,228-(151)

StatusPublished

This text of 152 N.W. 653 (Grimes v. Gaughan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grimes v. Gaughan, 152 N.W. 653, 129 Minn. 537, 1915 Minn. LEXIS 763 (Mich. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On July 29, 1913, plaintiff, the landlord, wrote defendant, his tenant, concerning the renewal of a written lease for a store building which expired -August 31, 1913: “On account of high rate of insurance and cost of heating, I am compelled to hold the store at $30.00 per Month after August next. Kindly advise me whether you desire the store for another year at that figure.” The rent prior to August 31 was $25 per month payable in advance. No communication passed between the parties subsequent to this letter in regard to a renewal of [538]*538the lease. Defendant remained in possession, paying for the month of September, 1913, and, for every month thereafter, $30 as rent in advance until April 1, 1914, when he vacated, having, more than 30 days previous thereto, served notice of intention so to do. The action was to recover the rent for April and May, 1914. The court found that the lease was by mutual agreement renewed for one year from September 1, 1913, at the monthly rental of $30, and granted plaintiff judgment. Defendant assigns as errors: “(1) The trial court erred in ordering judgment for the respondent; (2) the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for the amended findings; (3) the trial court erred in not ordering judgment for appellant.” The record contains a motion to amend the findings, but fails to show that it was heard or determined, hence the second assignment of error presents nothing for review. We find no motion for a new trial, but there is an order denying such a motion. From this order is the appeal. It is plain that the facts found require judgment for plaintiff, and that the first and third assignments of error are insufficient to present the question whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact. But this aside, it is clear that the reasons stated for affirming the finding of a renewal of the lease in Stees v. Bergmeier, 91 Minn. 513, 98 N. W. 648, also calls for an affirmance of the order here appealed from on the merits.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

On July 29, 1913, plaintiff, the landlord, wrote defendant, his tenant, concerning the renewal of a written lease for a store building which expired -August 31, 1913: “On account of high rate of insurance and cost of heating, I am compelled to hold the store at $30.00 per Month after August next. Kindly advise me whether you desire the store for another year at that figure.” The rent prior to August 31 was $25 per month payable in advance. No communication passed between the parties subsequent to this letter in regard to a renewal of [538]*538the lease. Defendant remained in possession, paying for the month of September, 1913, and, for every month thereafter, $30 as rent in advance until April 1, 1914, when he vacated, having, more than 30 days previous thereto, served notice of intention so to do. The action was to recover the rent for April and May, 1914. The court found that the lease was by mutual agreement renewed for one year from September 1, 1913, at the monthly rental of $30, and granted plaintiff judgment. Defendant assigns as errors: “(1) The trial court erred in ordering judgment for the respondent; (2) the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for the amended findings; (3) the trial court erred in not ordering judgment for appellant.” The record contains a motion to amend the findings, but fails to show that it was heard or determined, hence the second assignment of error presents nothing for review. We find no motion for a new trial, but there is an order denying such a motion. From this order is the appeal. It is plain that the facts found require judgment for plaintiff, and that the first and third assignments of error are insufficient to present the question whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact. But this aside, it is clear that the reasons stated for affirming the finding of a renewal of the lease in Stees v. Bergmeier, 91 Minn. 513, 98 N. W. 648, also calls for an affirmance of the order here appealed from on the merits.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 N.W. 653, 129 Minn. 537, 1915 Minn. LEXIS 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grimes-v-gaughan-minn-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack