Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P, prior to the time she leased a building from D, was operating a beauty parlor in one of the downtown buildings in Tulsa; that she was required to vacate the rooms used by her in said building on or before May 1, 1946. P sought to lease a portion of D's building for a term of years. The transaction finally resulted in her leasing the entire building, which consisted of four units of several rooms each, two upstairs and two downstairs. As of the lease date, there were still tenants in two of the units. D assured P they would be gone because he raised their rent from $50 to $150 per month and had given 30-day notices requiring them to vacate. D assured P they would be gone by June 1 and then was assured it would be June 7th. P testified that D failed to oust the tenants from the two units occupied by them, although one of them subsequently left, and that the occupant of the other unit offered her the regular $0 per month rental, but she refused to accept the same P had installed her beauty parlor in one of the downstairs units, and upon failure to obtain the possession of the entire building removed therefrom to other quarters on or about the 1st of August, 1946. D argued that his duty did include a transfer of the legal right of possession and not physical possession. D denied all of P's statements. The jury found for P. Both parties appealed. P appealed because she was not permitted to testify with respect to lost profits.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co