Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)

Citation
Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
Parent Document
Kintner v. Harr, 408 P.2d 487 (1965)
Jurisdiction
Montana (state)
Effective Date
1965-12-08

Other Sections in This Document (95)

Full Text

846 chars
Since Harr took his rights under the lease as well as assumed the obligations, his contention that there was no privity of estate or mutuality of remedy between him and the assignees of the lessor is without merit. The legal effect of the “Receipt and Agreement to Sell and Purchase” makes him an assignee of the lessee and give him every right under the lease that Riggs had. Section 67-706, R.C.M. 1947. This is not altered by the fact that a covenant in the lease prohibited assignment without written approval of the lessor. That provision is for the benefit of the lessor and may be waived by accepting rent from the assignee and permitting him to remain in possession. Crossman v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., (U.S. C.A. 5th Cir. 1959), 273 F.2d 720, 728; People v. Klopstock, 24 Cal.2d 897, 151 P.2d 641; Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning *477