Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R'y Co. v. Burlington & Mississippi Elevator Co.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R'y Co. v. Burlington & Mississippi Elevator Co.
Opinion of the Court
I. The contract upon which the action is based was entered into between plaintiff and Benjamin D. Brown.
It becomes necessary, for a proper understanding of the case, to state with sufficient particularity some of the covenants therein, and to quote all others. The lease is divided into sections, numbered consecutively, which affords'a convenient means of referring to the covenants of the respective parties: (1) The plaintiff leases to Brown, for the rent reserved in the contract, certain land in the city of Burlington, particularly described, for the term of eighteen years. (2) Brown agrees to build thereon an elevator, of the capacity of 400,000 bushels of grain, to be constructed in the manner and according to plans specified. (3) The third section prescribes the charges to be made for handling grain. (4) Brown agrees to handle promptly all grain brought to the elevator by plaintiff, who is obliged to switch cars bringing the grain with reasonable dispatch. (5) Grain brought to the elevator is to be shipped therefrom by plaintiff’s road, unless it be found expedient to ship by the river. (6) The plaintiff, any time after two years, shall have the right to purchase the elevator and the machinery therein, “ paying therefor a sum which shall not exceed its value as a structure merely, and in ascertaining snch value no account shall be taken of its commercial value, nor any other element of value it may have, except as a mere structure.” The method of ascertaining the value, and other matters, are prescribed, which need not be more particularly referred to here. (7) In case Brown or his successors wish to dispose of the elevator, it shall be first offered to plaintiff. (8) Sections 8 and 9 are in the following language: “Sec. 8. The said second party further agrees to keep accurate books of account of the business transacted by him, which shall at all times be open to the inspection of the vice-president of the first party, or any person duly authorized by him. Such books of account shall
The petition does not aver that, after the payments provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and & of the eighth section, any sum remained in the hands of the defendant. The demurrer is based upon the ground that, under the contract, plaintiff is entitled to receive and recover nothing unless a balance remains in the hands of defendant after the payments required by these paragraphs are made, and, as no such balance is shown or averred, the petition fails to present a cause of action against defendant.
II. In our opiniou, the demurrer was rightly sustained. The language and form of the contract unmistakably indicate the purposes of the payments to be made out of the earnings of the elevator, and their order. Those contemplated in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and á of section 8 are to be made before those provided for in the following paragraphs. The order of enumeration of these payments settles their order of priority. The reason of these provisions of the contract is quite plain. The defendant depended largely, if not wholly, upon the business brought to it by plaintiff for i'ts income, and the plaintiff became bound by the agreement to furnish defendant all the grain transported to Burlington over its road. A failure to perform this obligation would largely diminish the income of defendant. The elevator could not be operated successfully unless the expenses contemplated in the paragraph above referred to were first paid out of its earnings. The plaintiff, by the terms of the contract, became interested in the successful prosecution of the business done at the elevator. These considerations, doubtless, induced the provisions requiring expenses of operating it to be first paid out
III. Counsel for the plaintiff insist that, as the payments to be made to it under the contract were in fact rent, and were so denominated in the instrument, the law will presume defendant’s obligation to pay it, but no such presumption will arise against the language and the jilain interpretation of the contract. It is entirely competent for a landlord to stipulate that the rent be receives shall be contingent upon the income of the tenant from the demised premises. The leasing of farm lands upon the shares, or for cash rent, to be determined by the quantity of grain raised, and sometimes by its price, is a common way of renting, under which the rent to be received by tbe landlord is contingent upon tbe success of tlie tenant iu raising crops. Leasing of laud in this way is somewhat like the contract of tbe parties sought to be enforced in this action.
In our opinion, the judgment of the district court ought to be Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R'y Co. v. The Burlington & Mississippi Elevator Co.
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published