Anderson Drive-In Theatre, Inc. v. Kirkpatrick
Indiana Court of Appeals
110 N.E.2d 506 (1953)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Kirkpatrick (plaintiff) was a farmer who leased land under a 25-year lease to Anderson Drive-In Theatre, Inc. (Anderson) (defendant). After Anderson leased the land, it found that the land was boggy and not suitable for building a drive-in theater complex, which was the purpose for which Anderson had leased it. A dispute arose over the lease between Anderson and Kirkpatrick. Eventually Kirkpatrick sued Anderson for the rent under the terms of the lease. Anderson filed a cross-complaint, alleging that Kirkpatrick had known that the land was unsuitable for Anderson’s purpose, that this unsuitability was not readily apparent, and that Kirkpatrick’s failure to inform Anderson about this condition of the land amounted to a misrepresentation of material fact. Kirkpatrick filed a demurrer to Anderson’s cross-complaint, asserting that it did not state facts sufficient to support a cross-complaint, because the rule of caveat emptor applied to leases. The lower court sustained Kirkpatrick’s demurrer. Anderson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Royse, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.