Boardman Realty Co. v. Carlin
| Citation | 74 A. 682,82 Conn. 413 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 17 December 1909 |
| Parties | BOARDMAN REALTY CO. v. CARLIN. |
Appeal from City Court of Hartford; Herbert S. Bullard, Judge.
Action by the Boardman Realty Company against George F. Carlin. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Augustine Lonergan, for appellant.
Stewart N. Dunning, for appellee.
This is an action to recover a month's rent of certain premises on Asylum street, Hartford. The court has found that in July, 1907, the defendant was occupying the premises under a written lease from the plaintiff, which was to terminate on the last day of that month, and that on or about the 6th day of July he hired of the plaintiff and it leased to him by a verbal agreement the same premises for a further term of three years, beginning August 1, 1907, at the monthly rent of $75, payable on the 1st day of each month beginning with August 1, 1907. This was an advance of $10 per month over the rent which he had been paying under the original lease. The terms of this lease were afterwards reduced to writing, but the draft was never signed by either of the parties. The defendant at the termination of the original lease continued in the occupancy of the premises, paying the rent at the increased rate monthly in advance up to and including the month of September, 1908. On the 5th of that month he vacated the premises. He had notified the plaintiff a month previously that he would do so. When he left the premises, he offered to deliver the keys to the plaintiff, but it refused to accept them, and notified him that he would be held for the rent for the balance of the year ending July 31, 1909. He thereupon left the keys upon the desk of one of the officers of the plaintiff. This action was brought in November, 1908, to recover the rent for the preceding month.
The defendant's claim is that if there was a parol lease for three years between him and the plaintiff, as found by the court, it was void under the statute of frauds; that his tenancy after August 1, 1907, was one from month to month and was terminated on September 30, 1908, to which date he had paid the rent; that if, as claimed by the plaintiff, the tenancy was from year to year, no rent would become due until the end of the year, and therefore nothing was due under it when the action was brought. He claims, however, that the finding should be corrected so as to state that there was no agreement between the parties respecting a new lease of the premises, or so as to state that the agreement between them was for a written lease to be afterward given. There was direct evidence that the plaintiff leased the premises to the defendant by parol for three years from August 1, 1907. This was supplemented by evidence that the defendant for more than a year thereafter occupied the premises under the lease and paid rent at the advanced rate, and that the plaintiff accepted the rent. There was sufficient evidence, therefore, to warrant the court's finding of the fact that there was such a parol lease between the parties. Mr. Boardman, the plaintiff's president, testified as to the making of the contract. It does not appear that any objection was made at the trial to the reception of his testimony. It does not appear that any claim was made in argument or to the court that Mr. Boardman's authority to act for the corporation was questioned, or that it was claimed, as now argued, that it should appear from the plaintiff's records that authority was given to make a lease of the premises. As the question was not raised in the trial court, it is not properly presented here. Other corrections of the finding are asked for, but the finding as it stands is supported by the evidence which is a part of the record. The corrections, therefore, will not be made.
The parol lease which the court finds was entered into between the parties, being for more than one year, was clearly within the statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gruman v. Investors Diversified Services
...v. Dudley, 65 Ala. 68; Browne v. Dugan, 189 Ark. 551, 74 S.W.2d 640; Strei v. Brooks, 95 Cal.App. 589, 273 P. 145; Boardman Realty Co. v. Carlin, 82 Conn. 413, 74 A. 682; Manley v. Kellar, 8 Terry 511, 47 Del. 511, 94 A.2d 219; Williams v. Aeroland Oil Co., 155 Fla. 114, 20 So.2d 346; Hirsc......
-
Amwax Corp. v. Chadwick
...v. Swirsky, 86 Conn. 32, 34, 84 A. 104 (1912); see also Handy v. Barclay, 98 Conn. 290, 119 A. 227 (1922); Boardman Realty Co. v. Carlin, 82 Conn. 413, 74 A. 682 (1909); Corbett v. Cochrane, 67 Conn. 570, 35 A. 509 (1896); Larkin v. Avery, 23 Conn. 304 "Occupancy under the unenforceable lea......
-
Commercial Bldg. Co. v. Lehman
...v. Dudley, 65 Ala. 68; Meyer v. Smith, 33 Ark. 627; Respini v. Porta, 89 Cal. 464, 26 P. 967, 23 Am. St. Rep. 488; Boardman Remedy Co. v. Carlin, 82 Conn. 413, 416, 74 A. 682; Harmon v. Callahan, 214 Ill. App. 104; Patterson v. Emerich, 21 Ind. App. 614, 52 N. E. 1012; Alsup v. Banks, 68 Mi......
-
Swist v. Swist
...court. Sperry v. Butler, 75 Conn. 369, 371, 53 A. 899; Atwood v. Jarrett, 81 Conn. 532, 533, 71 A. 569; Boardman Realty Co. v. Carlin, 82 Conn. 413, 415, 74 A. 682; Donovan v. Davis, 85 Conn. 394, 396, 82 A. 1025; Zalewski v. Waterbury Mfg. Co., 89 Conn. 46, 49, 92 A. 682; Jordan v. Apter, ......