In re the Receivership of Delaware Candy Co.
Opinion of the Court
As between the lessor and lessee, the right of the lessee to remove trade fixtures erected by it was subject to the condition that there was no rent in arrear at the termination of the lease. In the absence of any agreement on the subject the tenant would have had a right to remove the trade fixtures, though the rent be then in arrear, subject to the right of the landlord to distrain the same for the unpaid rent. Here, however, there was a specific agreement giving a right to remove fixtures under a certain condition, viz. payment of rent in arrear, and the condition displaces the common-law right to the extent of requiring a fulfillment of the condition before the right of -removal can be exercised. Tiffany on Landlord & Tenant, p. 1598, §243; Mathinet v. Giddings, 10 Ohio 365; Clemens v. Murphy, 40 Mo. 121; Allen v. Gates, 73 Vt. 222, 50 Atl. 1092; Cubbins v. Ayers, 4 Lea (72 Tenn.) 329; Holbrook v. Chamberlin, 116 Mass. 155.
Here, before the receiver was appointed, the lease was terminated, not by lapse of time, but by the lessor under a power in the lease for non-payment of rent then in arrear. Subsequently the receiver, by order of the court, sold all of the trade fixtures put in by the tenant. This was without objection on the part of the lessor. He has explained, however, that he did not act earlier because he had mislaid his copy of the lease and did not recall the terms thereof giving him the right he now
Let an order be entered accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.