Borris Drug Co. v. Gainsboro Bldg. Gorporation
| Decision Date | 23 May 1927 |
| Citation | 260 Mass. 117,156 N.E. 840 |
| Parties | BORRIS DRUG CO. v. GAINSBORO BLDG. GORPORATION. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Lourie, Judge.
Suit by the Norris Drug Company against the Gainsboro Building Corporation. On report. Decree dismissing bill.
U. D. Garfield, of Boston, for plaintiff.
W. Hartstone, of Boston, for defendant.
The defendant on January 4, 1923, leased to the plaintiff ‘the corner store numbered 291 Huntington avenue in said Boston, in the building now numbered 291-303 on said Huntington avenue.’ ‘The demised premises are to be used for the purpose of carrying on the business of a drug store.’ The lease among other provisions contained the following clause:
‘Provided always, that in case the said premises, or any part thereof, or the whole or any part of the building of which they are a part, shall be taken for any street or other public use, or shall be destroyed or damaged by fire or other unavoidable casualty, or by the action of the city or other authorities, after the execution hereof and before the expiration of the said term, then this lease and the same term shall terminate at the election of the lessor, and such election may be made in the case of any such taking notwithstanding the entire interest of the lessor may have been divested by such taking; and if they shall not so elect, then in case of any such taking or destruction of or damage to the demised premises, a just proportion of the rent hereinbefore reserved, according to the nature and extent of the injury sustained by the demised premises, shall be suspended or abated until the demised premises, or in case of such taking, what may remain thereof, shall have been put in proper condition for use and occupation.’
The trial judge found that on May 2, 1926, a fire occurred in the tailor shop of a tenant, a portion of the building of which the demised premises were a part. It spread to the studio of another tenant, causing substantial injury to the building and destruction of some of the woodwork. But the plaintiff's store was not injured, nor was his business interrupted while repairs were being made for the restoration of the building. The defendant, however, immediately after the fire elected to terminate the lease because of the damage to the building and gave due notice of his election to the plaintiff, who thereupon brought this suit to enjoin further proceedings.
[1][2] The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Saldi v. Brighton Stock Yard Co.
-
Zevitas v. Adams
...should be destroyed or damaged by fire, the lease was to terminate at the election of the lessors. See Norris Drug Co. v. Gainsboro Building Corp., 260 Mass. 117, 156 N. E. 840. It appeared that early in 1927 the plaintiff was in weak financial condition and was anxious to dispose of his le......
-
H.W. Robinson Carpet Co. v. Fletcher
... ... Inc. v. American Realty Corp. 256 Mass. 258 ... Norris Drugrris Drug ... Co. v. Gainsboro ... ...
-
Allen v. Kilpatrick
...fire’ was ‘rendered unfit for use and habitation.’ These facts justified termination of the tenancy. See Norris Drug Co. v. Gainsboro Building Corp., 260 Mass. 117, 119, 156 N. E. 840. The lease is not to be interpreted as permitting such termination only when the whole premises were render......