The Saloon That Wouldn't Leave
A legal war erupts over a property lease, testing whether a landlord is responsible for ousting a tenant after selling the building.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Jaha T. Fletcher's suit against Emma McClanahan to recover $27,000 in damages for not being able to gain possession of the lower part of a building at the corner of Main Street and Railroad Avenue was on trial before a jury in Judge Osborn's court yesterday. The case is an interesting one and fairly bristling with delicate law points. Fletcher leased the building from Mrs. McClanahan, subject to a lease the latter had from the Columbia & Puget Sound Railway Company. That lease had clauses prohibiting any saloon being kept in the building. At the time of the lease from Mrs. McClanahan to Fletcher, the lower part was used by Gumbert & Co. as a saloon. Fletcher obtained possession of the upper part, but Gumbert refused to yield the saloon, claiming Mrs. McClanahan had granted him a verbal renewal. Fletcher sued for damages, arguing the property was useless without the saloon space. The defendant argued that under the laws of the state, the making of a lease carries no warranty on the part of the lessor to put the lessee in possession.
“The making of a lease carried with it no contract or warranty on the part of the lessor to put the lessee in possession.”
Landlord-tenant disputes in Seattle remain as complex today as they were in 1893. While we no longer fight over saloon leases, the struggle to enforce lease terms in a city with high housing and commercial pressure persists.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.