Holloway v. Schmidt
James W. Holloway v. Frederick Schmidt
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The words “ first privilege of a renewal ”, as used in the lease, meant the prior right to a lease of five years upon terms the same as those in the lease of 1895, provided the landlord should give a lease.
This construction seems reasonable, particularly in view of the evidence of Mrs. Schmidt that when the lease was first made and her husband came down, Mr. Peering said “we don’t give no ten years ”.
The order is reversed, with costs. An order of dispossession will be granted.
Present: Tbuax, P. J., Scott and Dugbo, JJ.
Order reversed, with costs. Order of dispossession granted.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 12 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.