Important To Tenants

We have so many inquirios concernlng the recent adjustment of the euit against us for rent of the building we occupied as a shoe factory, and which was destroyed by flre March 30, 1887, and there doubtless heing many tenants who do not understand the law in relation to the effect of a fire on leased buildings, that we take this opportunity of explaining the matter fully. Our lease, at the time the building waa destroyed, had Hbout two years to run at an anuual rental of $3,200. This was half of our factory; the other half in the rear owned by other parties being separated by a brick wall. The landlord of the burned building collected an Insurance of about $20,000, wüich lef t him the lot valued at $24,000 ; and, as he had awhile before offered to sell us the property for $33,000, he was gainer by over $10,000 through the fire. We were very much surprised to receive bilí for rent aftsr the building was destroyed and the property of no possible use to us, ánd, of course, would not pay the same untll the matter was contested in our courts. A trial in the Wayne County Circuit Court resulted In a verdict against us for the full amount of the rent for the unexpired time of the lease. It developed, however, in courae of the proceedings, that the lease was slgned by the landlord's attorney and good for but one year, as the fact was establlshed that he did not have authority in writlng to sign leases. On this point, we appealed to the Supreme Court of Michigan, and were sustained, so that we were relieved from paying rent through this technicality. Kecently the plaintiff commenced suit again on same lease, claiming to have discovered new evidence relative to lts validity, aud while our attorneys were confldent that nothing could be collected by suit we settled the claim for $750, which was just about what we figured it would cost us to contest it. It behooves all tenants to see that there is a fire clause in their leases providing that in case of destruction of the buildings, rent shall cease until they are replaced by the landlord. Why not have thii law changed at next session of Legislature, as it is in Masgachu8etts and New York ? Ask your üoxt Representativo about it. Shoe Manufacturera. Detroit, March 4, 1892.