Keroes v. Coleman

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Keroes v. Coleman

42 App. D.C. 436, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2308

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 2, 1914

DocketNo. 2668

StatusPublished

This text of 42 App. D.C. 436 (Keroes v. Coleman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keroes v. Coleman, 42 App. D.C. 436, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2308 (D.C. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Van Orsdbl

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The covenant in the lease, though inartificially expressed, is not difficult to interpret. It reserved to defendant the right, in [438]*438the event the property should be .sold to a purchaser other thau the plaintiff, to obtain possession thereof before the termination of the lease, upon giving plaintiff six months’ notice to quit and the payment of $2,000. But the tenancy of plaintiff was not interrupted. Defendant did not elect to exercise the right reserved to her in the lease. Hence, plaintiff was not damaged, and is not in position to enforce his claim for the amount of damages agreed upon in the event of his being called upon to deliver possession before the termination of the lease. The authorities cited in defendant’s brief support this interpretation. Foley v. Constantino, 43 Misc. 91, 86 N. Y. Supp. 780; Johnston v. King, 83 Wis. 8, 53 N. W. 28; McDaniel v. Callan, 75 Ala. 327; Lunke v. Egeland, 46 Mont. 403, 128 Pac. 610.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs. Affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Van Orsdbl

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The covenant in the lease, though inartificially expressed, is not difficult to interpret. It reserved to defendant the right, in [438]*438the event the property should be .sold to a purchaser other thau the plaintiff, to obtain possession thereof before the termination of the lease, upon giving plaintiff six months’ notice to quit and the payment of $2,000. But the tenancy of plaintiff was not interrupted. Defendant did not elect to exercise the right reserved to her in the lease. Hence, plaintiff was not damaged, and is not in position to enforce his claim for the amount of damages agreed upon in the event of his being called upon to deliver possession before the termination of the lease. The authorities cited in defendant’s brief support this interpretation. Foley v. Constantino, 43 Misc. 91, 86 N. Y. Supp. 780; Johnston v. King, 83 Wis. 8, 53 N. W. 28; McDaniel v. Callan, 75 Ala. 327; Lunke v. Egeland, 46 Mont. 403, 128 Pac. 610.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 App. D.C. 436, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keroes-v-coleman-dc-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack