Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

91 Or. 268

Fritz v. Riggs

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 25, 1919

Oregon Supreme Court · decided 1919-02-25

From Multnomah: Robert Tucker, Judge. Department 1. This is a suit in the nature of a cross-bill to declare canceled a lease from respondent to appellants, and to enjoin the respondent from proceeding in an action at law which had been begun by him to collect rent from the appellants upon such lease. The lease was for a period of ten years and more, and would normally expire the fifteenth day of October, Í921.

Relies on Gaston v. Gordon · Burgett v. Loeb · Lawrence v. White

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1919-02-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1951

1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

2019191920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McBRIDE, C. J.

¶11. As will be observed from the foregoing statement, the right to terminate the lease was conditioned upon the happening of a particular contingency, namely: Such a change in the laws of Oregon, or the ordinances of the City of Portland, as should prevent the sale of liquor in the precinct where the leased premises were situated.

¶2There was no change made in the laws of the state, or in the ordinances of the city, during the time for which defendant claimed the right to recover rent, and the sale of liquor in the precinct was not prohibited by law or ordinance. The plaintiffs asked for a renewal of their license but it was refused by the mayor and council on the ground that the building was situated so near one of the public bridges across the Willamette Eiver that it would be against public policy *271to permit a saloon to be operated at that point. The sum and substance of plaintiffs’ contention is, that having been refused a license it became impossible for them to carry on the business for which the building was leased, and that they are therefore within the cancellation clause before recited. While the situation of plaintiffs is unfortunate the court cannot afford them relief. To do so would be to make for the parties a contract different from that which they themselves have executed. It is well settled by numerous decisions that the failure to obtain a license, or the failure to secure the renewal of a license, to sell liquors will not authorize the cancellation of a lease in cases such as the present: Burke v. San Francisco Breweries, 21 Cal. App. 198 (131 Pac. 83); Gaston v. Gordon, 208 Mass. 265 (94 N. E. 307); Burgett v. Loeb, 43 Ind. App. 657 (88 N. E. 346); Goodrum Tobacco Co. v. Potts Thompson Liquor Co., 133 Ga. 776 (66 S. E. 1081, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 498); Lawrence v. White, 131 Ga. 840 (63 S. E. 631, 15 Ann. Cas. 1097, and notes, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 966).

¶3Many other decisions might be cited to the same effect, but it is sufficient to observe that the vast weight of authorities coincides with the views expressed in those above enumerated. In this view of the case consideration of the other questions presented becomes unimportant and the decree is affirmed.

¶4Affirmed.

Benson, Harris and Burnett, JJ., concur.
/91/or/268 · .json · Public domain