[Download] "Potier Et Al. v. A. W. Perry" by Supreme Court of Minnesota " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Potier Et Al. v. A. W. Perry
- Author : Supreme Court of Minnesota
- Release Date : January 06, 1934
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 64 KB
Description
RUGG, Chief Justice. The plaintiffs allege in substance in this suit in equity that they leased certain premises from the defendant for a term of years; that the defendant has wrongfully withheld from the possession of their goods, wares and merchandise constituting their stock in trade in the leased premises, and has excluded them from gaining access to their leased premises for the purpose of removing their personal property; that the defendant had no lawful right thus to distrain their property; that by such unlawful withholding possession of their goods from the plaintiffs the defendant has caused them great damages; and that demand has been made upon the defendant for possession of their goods, which has been refused. The prayers are for a mandatory injunction ordering the defendant to surrender to the plaintiffs their goods and restraining the defendant from interfering with removal of their goods, for assessment of damages caused to the plaintiffs by such wrongful withholding of their goods, and for further relief. The answer of the defendant admitted the lease and set up nonpayment by the plaintiffs of the rent reserved to the defendant in the lease and authority for the defendant under the terms of the lease to re-enter into possession of the demised premises for such nonpayment of rent, denial of distraint of property of the plaintiffs and denial that demand had been made upon it for the goods. The defendant further answered that the plaintiffs are indebted to it for rent from May 15, 1932, and for light from February 1, 1932, and praying that the indebtedness due from the plaintiffs be determined and that execution issue therefor. On the face of the pleadings the case presented by the plaintiffs was one for equitable replevin of merchandise and assessment of damages for detention, and a counterclaim pleaded by the defendant.