Herpolsheimer v. Christopher

Supreme Court of Nebraska · Property

PropertyLandlord and TenantLeasesPossessionDamagesimplied covenant of possessionholdover tenantlease

Facts

The owner of a 480-acre farm leased it in writing to Christopher for a one-year term beginning March 1, 1902, but another tenant was then in possession under a lease ending on that same date. The holdover tenant refused to surrender possession, and although the landlord obtained judgment in forcible detainer, the holdover tenant appealed and remained in possession. Christopher then demanded return of the promissory notes he had given for rent, and the notes were canceled and surrendered, while Christopher also asserted a claim for damages. Christopher later sued for damages based on not receiving possession at the beginning of the term.

Issue

Does a lessor ordinarily impliedly covenant that the leased premises will be open to the lessee's entry when the term begins, so that the lessee may recover damages if a holdover tenant prevents possession? Also, did Christopher's demand for and receipt of the return of his rent notes conclusively rescind the lease and abandon his damages claim, or was that question for the jury?

Rule

Ordinarily, a lessor impliedly covenants with the lessee that the leased premises shall be open to entry by the lessee at the time fixed in the lease as the beginning of the term. If the lessee is denied that opportunity, the ordinary measure of damages is the difference between the rental value of the premises and the rent reserved in the lease, together with special damages that are pleaded and proved. Whether the lessee rescinded and abandoned the contract and any claim for damages by accepting return of rent notes depends on the parties' intent and, when the evidence is conflicting, is a question of fact for the jury.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Salina, Kansas, Nora Bell leased 300 acres from Owen Pike for a one-year term beginning March 1. The written lease said nothing about delivering possession, but the prior tenant remained on the land for six weeks after March 1 and refused to leave, preventing Nora from entering.

If Nora sues Owen for breach of lease based on failure to obtain possession at the start of the term, which is the strongest argument in her favor?

Explanation. The majority adopted the rule that, ordinarily, a lessor impliedly covenants that the leased premises shall be open to entry by the lessee at the beginning of the term. Thus, even without an express delivery-of-possession clause, the lessee may sue when a holdover occupant prevents entry. The rule is not limited to direct personal exclusion by the landlord, and it does not depend on an express covenant of quiet enjoyment. (Derived from Herpolsheimer v. Christopher (n.d.).)