Clayman v. Totten
| Decision Date | 04 January 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 4265.,4265. |
| Citation | 10 F.2d 910,56 App. DC 115 |
| Parties | CLAYMAN et al. v. TOTTEN. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
E. H. Jackson, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
M. D. Rosenberg and Max Rhoade, all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
The plaintiff below filed a bill, seeking a decree for the specific performance of a certain written lease. The defendant filed an answer, which had the effect of a general demurrer to the bill. The lower court held against the bill, and dismissed it, with costs. Hence this appeal.
It appears from the allegations of the bill that on May 27, 1919, the defendant, Howe Totten, duly executed a written lease to one John B. Newman for certain real estate situate within the District of Columbia, for a term of five years, beginning June 1, 1919, with the agreement that at the expiration of this period the lessor would lease the premises for a further term of five years upon similar conditions to the lessee, "upon three months' written notice of intention to claim said privilege." The lessee Newman entered into possession under the lease, and on November 12, 1920, assigned the lease and all his rights thereunder to the appellants, Samuel M. Clayman and Harry I. Clayman. The term of five years provided by the lease expired on June 1, 1924; consequently the period of three months next preceding that date began with March 1, 1924. The lessees, however, failed to notify the lessor on or before that day of their intention to claim the privilege of renewing the lease, but afterwards, to wit, on March 24, 1924, they sent a written notice to the lessor to that effect. The lessor immediately refused to grant the renewal, claiming that the privilege had lapsed, owing to the failure of notice within the time required by the lease. The appellants contend, nevertheless, that they are entitled to the renewal, and that they would suffer great injury to the business which they have established upon the premises, should it be denied them. The sole question in the case, therefore, is whether the lessees' right to a renewal lapsed because of their failure to notify the lessor of their election on or before March 1, 1924.
We think the lower court was right in dismissing the bill. The three months' notice required by the lease was a condition precedent, which the lessees were bound to comply...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guy Dean's Lake Shore Marina, Inc. v. Ramey
...Co. v. Hexter & Lobello, 567 S.W.2d 237 (Tex.App.1978); Woodrum v. Pulliam, 453 S.W.2d 263 (Ky.App.1970); Clayman v. Totten, 56 App.D.C. 115, 10 F.2d 910 (1926). Each also noted, however, that generally, equity will not relieve against mere forgetfulness when a tenant fails to give timely I......
-
Duncan v. G.E.W., Inc.
...42-43, 104 S.E.2d 55, 58 (1958) (equitable relief available if there is fraud, mistake, surprise, or accident); cf. Clayman v. Totten, 56 App.D.C. 115, 10 F.2d 910 (1926) (lessee failed to allege "any peculiar equity" as excuse for delay). Moreover, the case law in these three jurisdictions......
-
McClellan v. Ashley
...at 5; and also Dugan v. Haige, (Fla.) 54 So.2d 201; Pope v. Goethe, 175 S.C. 394, 179 S.E. 319, 99 A.L.R. 1005; Clayman et al. v. Totten, 56 App.D.C. 115, 10 F.2d 910; Rounds v. Owensboro Ferry Co., 253 Ky. 301, 69 S.W.2d 350; Scott-Burr Stores Corp. v. Wilcox, 5 Cir., 194 F.2d 989; Jones v......
-
Trueman-Aspen Co. v. North Mill Inv. Corp., TRUEMAN-ASPEN
...petitioning for equitable relief has failed, through its own negligence, to exercise an option to extend a lease. See Clayman v. Totten, 56 App.D.C. 115, 10 F.2d 910 (1926); Simons v. Young, 93 Cal.App.3d 170, 155 Cal.Rptr. 460 (4th Dist.1979); Woodrum v. Pulliam, 453 S.W.2d 263 (Ky.1970); ......