Brill

Action for unlawful detainer. Judgment for the plaintiff upon the pleadings, from which defendant appeals.

It appears from the complaint that on May 1, 1902, plaintiff leased to defendant the described premises, as a'private hotel, for one year, at a monthly rental of $100; that during the tenancy extensive improvements thereon were made, with defendant’s approval, the effect of which was to add twenty-seven rooms to the building, which improvements were completed December 1, 1902. Defendant, after December 1, 1902, paid to plaintiff a monthly rental of $300, and continued so to do until July 1, 1903; that after the payment of the June rental plaintiff served upon the defendant a written notice to quit and deliver up possession of the premises on August 1, 1903, and thereafter, on August 4, 1903, served a three-days’ notice to quit, or, in default, that legal proceedings would be commenced to recover possession, with treble rent as damages. Defendant answered, denying that the improvements were made with her consent; and alleging that on September 9, 1902, plaintiff executed to defendant the following instrument:

And under this agreement defendant averred that she was holding.…

I concur in the judgment, and generally, in the reasoning of the opinion. I am not prepared to say, however, that the agreement of September 9, 1902, set up in the defendant’s answer, is not a valid agreement according to its terms. Nor is it necessary in this case to hold the contrary, or to say anything affecting the question.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on January 2, 1906, and a petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on February 2, 1906.