Cohen v. Homonoff

• Decision Date: 02 April 1942
• Citation: Cohen v. Homonoff, 311 Mass. 374, 41 N.E.2d 193 (Mass. 1942)
• Parties: JULIUS O. COHEN v. MORRIS HOMONOFF.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

311 Mass. 374

41 N.E.2d 193

JULIUS O. COHEN v. MORRIS HOMONOFF.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

April 2, 1942

January 7, 1942.

Present: FIELD, C.

J., QUA, DOLAN & RONAN, JJ.

Landlord and Tenant, Modification of lease. Contract, Modification Consideration.

An oral agreement for reduction of the rent payable under the provisions of a sealed lease was supported by sufficient consideration where it was made at the suggestion of the lessor following a statement by the lessee that he would have to leave the premises unless the lessor made certain repairs which he had promised during the negotiations for the lease and which the lessee had relied on in executing it.

CONTRACT. Writ in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston dated May 1, 1941.

The case was heard by Keniston, J. B. Ginsburg, for the plaintiff.

C. R. Goldstein for the defendant, submitted a brief.

DOLAN, J. This is an action of contract in which the plaintiff seeks to recover a balance of rent, amounting to $600, alleged to be due under the terms of a lease of certain real estate. The judge denied certain requests for rulings made by the plaintiff and found for the defendant. The case comes before us on the plaintiff's appeal from the order of the Appellate Division dismissing the report.

There was evidence tending to show the following facts: The lease in question was under seal and ran from the plaintiff to the defendant. It was executed by the parties on October 4, 1937. The term of the lease was for a period of two years and two months beginning November 1, 1937, and ending December 31, 1939. The stipulated rental was $125 per month for the first six months, and $150 per month for the balance of the term. The lease provided that the lessee should keep the premises "in such repair, order and condition as the same are in at the commencement of the said term, or may be put in during the continuance thereof

. . ." with certain exceptions not here material. There was no provision in the lease that repairs should be made by the lessor.

During negotiations between the parties preceding the execution of the lease the plaintiff agreed to repair the premises by "painting papering, plastering and carpentry work" to be done after the lease was executed. Relying on this promise the defendant signed the lease and occupied the premises. Within a short time thereafter the defendant requested the plaintiff to fulfill his promise to make these repairs. The plaintiff told the defendant to wait until after the first of January (1938) when the Christmas "rush" would be over stating that at that time he "would then be able to get the work done at a saving to himself." On January 22, 1938, the plaintiff called upon the defendant to collect the rent for that month, the rent for November and December, 1937, having been paid in full. Upon the occasion of this visit the defendant requested the plaintiff to make the repairs in accordance with his promise, and told him that unless this was done "he could not stay, that he had been losing money." The plaintiff then stated that he could not afford to make the repairs. The defendant said that he...