Jones v. Epstein
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Chicot Chancery Court; Z. T. Wood, Chancellor; 1. The erection and operation of a mill was not a part of the consideration for the lease; the only consideration was the payment of the $100 rental. Appellants offered to pay the rental and there was no forfeiture. The intention of the parties when ascertained must govern as to whether a covenant or condition was intended by the words used and if a condition whether precedent or subsequent.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Chicot Chancery Court; Z. T. Wood, Chancellor; 1. The erection and operation of a mill was not a part of the consideration for the lease; the only consideration was the payment of the $100 rental. Appellants offered to pay the rental and there was no forfeiture. The intention of the parties when ascertained must govern as to whether a covenant or condition was intended by the words used and if a condition whether precedent or subsequent. Leases are construed most strongly against the lessor, and in. favor of the lessee. 24 Cyc. 920, 991, 996. 2. But if appellee is correct in his…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
Appellee filed suit on August 14,1917, against appellants in the Chicot Chancery Court to cancel a lease on 20 acres, entered into on August 12, 1912, between Sam Epstein and Ruth Epstein, Ms wife, on the one part, and the Arkansas Cooperage Company on the other part, for the alleged reason that appellants had forfeited all right to an extension under the option clause of the contract by reason of .a failure of consideration.
Appellants denied that there had been any forfeiture on account of failure of consideration and asserted their right as assignees of the léase to insist upon a three year…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- W. T. Rawleigh Medical Co. v. HolcombSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- W. T. Rawleigh Medical Co. v. RoseSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
3Cited by10 opinions
- Lutterloh v. PattersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1947
- Gadsden Bowling Center, Inc. v. FrankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1947
- Hindquarter Corp. v. Property Development Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1981
- Reno Realty and Investment Co. v. HornsteinNevada Supreme Court · 1956
- Felder v. Hall Bros.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.