| Show interesting CASE IN DISTRICT COURT the case of janies james R ware against elliott larsen has been occupying the attention of judge joseph il 11 en ackson rickson in the district court monday and tuesday this case presented rather unusual issues the complaint alleged that mr A I 1 r ware bad been the ovner ov ner of a store building and grounds situated in monroe which he had leased to mr latsen larsen who conducted a general merchandise business on oil the premises and lived in the residence building adjoining the store the lease provided among other things that mr air larsen was td keep the building insured for 2000 during the life of the lease also that he had an option to purchase the building and ground at any time during the lease fotr and if he did not exercise his bis option to purchase before the expiration pi ration of the lease that he was to return the premises in as good condition as when received by him at the expiration of the lease larsen lareen I 1 had not exercised his bis option to purchase but held over from month to month on the same terms and was so occupying the premises on february 1922 when fire practically destroyed the entire buildings together with his stock of 0 goods and household furniture insurance to the amount of 1500 had been carried on the building in mr air wares name which was paid to him by the insurance company and larsen not being in a position to o rebuild build turned the premises back to mr ware who sold them to a third party it developed at the trial that mr larsen was only able to get 1500 insurance and not the 2000 as provided for in the agreement I 1 mr air ware then brought suit on two counts one tor the failure to insure as provided in the contract and thle ehfe other for the difference in price that he had received when he be sold it and what larsen was to have paid had he be exercised his option but the court held that mr ware having recovered the insurance and as much insurance having been ritten wn Ni itten on the building as they would carry and ware having taken possession of the ground and sold same that ho he had no cause of action against mr air lar sen and therefore granted the motion of defendant tor for a nonsuit non suit mr i ware was represented by parley I 1 Ilag magleby leby and mr larsen by T A hunt and 0 R |
