This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Julian and Gilleland (D) purchased a tavern and restaurant business and rented the premises from Christopher (P), the landlord. The lease contract stated explicitly that the premises could not be sublet without the express written authority of P. D's wanted to sublet an upstairs apartment and P informed Ds that he would only consent if they paid an extra $150 per month in rent. Ds permitted a sublessee to move in, and P sued for repossession. The trial judge refused to consider D's testimony regarding the warrant that the sublet clause was merely to prevent others from tearing up the apartment. The trial court found in favor of P, and so did the appeals court.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.