Ernst v. Conditt
Tennessee Court of Appeal
390 S.W.2d 703 (1965)
- Written by Dennis Chong, JD
Facts
The Ernsts (plaintiffs) owned a tract of land that they leased to Rogers in 1960. Rogers built up a Go-Cart business on the land and operated it for a year under the terms of the lease. Conditt (defendant) bought the Go-Cart business from Rogers. With respect to the land, the Ernsts and Rogers executed a second document that extended the lease term through July 1962 and granted permission to Rogers to “sublet” the land to Conditt, on the condition that Rogers remain liable under the lease. Conditt and Rogers then executed a document under which Rogers “sublet” the premises to Conditt. Conditt operated the business on the land from August through November 1960. He failed to pay rent for most of that time, claiming that he was not liable to the Ernsts for rent. In July 1962, near the expiration of the lease, the Ernsts demanded from Conditt full payment of the back rent and for removal of the improvements to the land. Conditt did not respond, and the Ernsts sued him. The trial court found that the conveyance from Rogers to Conditt was in fact an assignment and that Conditt was liable to the Ernsts for the relief requested. Conditt appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Chattin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 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.
