Wherry v. Lacey

388 P.2d 279, 236 Or. 307, 1964 Ore. LEXIS 272
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1964
StatusPublished

This text of 388 P.2d 279 (Wherry v. Lacey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wherry v. Lacey, 388 P.2d 279, 236 Or. 307, 1964 Ore. LEXIS 272 (Or. 1964).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action by landlords to recover possession of land from their tenants.

The trial court found that while the written lease under which the tenants had gone into possession had expired, it had been renewed by an oral agreement, and that in reliance upon such agreement, the tenants had made valuable improvements. Upon these facts, the court held that it would be inequitable to oust the tenants. The landlords appeal from a decree in favor of the tenants.

The question upon appeal is whether the trial court properly held that the landlords had waived a provision of the written lease which required written notice of an exercise of an option to renew.

When the proof, under a proper pleading, establishes facts sufficient to move a court of equity to grant relief, a landlord may be held to have waived a written notice of renewal. See eases collected in Annotion, 51 ALR2d 1404, 1417 (1957). The requirement of written notice is for the 'benefit of the landlord and he may waive it. See Perrigo et al. v. Boehm et al., 194 Or 507, 517, 242 P2d 791 (1952) (oral waiver of restriction against assignment).

There was abundant evidence to prove that the parties had made an oral agreement to renew the lease; that they did business under the oral agreement for some five years; and that the tenants, in reliance upon the renewal, made valuable improvements and [309]*309subleases with tbe landlords’ knowledge. Nothing in the record moves this court to make other findings. The requirement that notice of renewal be in writing was waived.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Perrigo v. Boehm
242 P.2d 791 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
388 P.2d 279, 236 Or. 307, 1964 Ore. LEXIS 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wherry-v-lacey-or-1964.