Connors v. Clark
| Decision Date | 04 June 1906 |
| Citation | 79 Conn. 100,63 A. 951 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CONNORS v. CLARK et ux. |
Error to Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; John Coats, Judge.
Summary proceedings for dispossession of a tenant by Bernard Clark and wife against John P. Connors. From a judgment of the court of common pleas, affirming a justice's judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant brings error. Affirmed.
The summary process complaint, presented to the justice of the peace and dated February 2, 1906, alleged that on January 5, 1901, the defendants in error gave to a partnership of which the defendant in error was a member a written lease of certain premises, which lease was set out at length in the complaint. By the terms of this lease, it appeared that it was given "for the term of one year with a privilege of five years from the first day of Feb., 1901." In its concluding paragraph it was further provided that "any holding over by the lessees shall be taken to be a renewal of said lease for a period of one year with the aforesaid privilege." The lessees agreed to "peaceably quit and surrender the premises at the end of the term or sooner termination of this lease in as good condition as the same are or shall be put," etc. In the following paragraph provision is made for the termination of the lease for nonpayment of rent, unauthorized alterations, commission of waste or injury to the premises, and for the recovery of possession by the lessors at any time thereafter without re-entry in the manner prescribed by the statute relating to summary process. Then follows, as the closing words of this paragraph, the following: "And all right of notice to quit possession is expressly waived by said lessees." The complaint further alleged that on February 1. 1901, said lessees entered into possession under said lease; that the plaintiff in error subsequently succeeded to the rights of said copartnership lessees; that on February 1, 1906, said lease expired and terminated by lapse of time; and that the plaintiff in error still neglected and refused to surrender the possession. This complaint the defendant demurred. The demurrer was overruled. Judgment having been afterward rendered for the plaintiffs, the present writ of error was brought.
Bernard F. Gaffney, for appellant. John H. Buck and Harry M. Burke, for appellees.
PRENTICE, J. (after stating the facts). The only error imputed to the justice is that he overruled the demurrer to the complaint. Save as a question of pleading is incidentally raised by the plaintiff in error, the demurrer presents but two questions, and those are questions whose answers are to be found in the construction to be given to the provisions of the lease.
The complaint alleges that the lease expired and terminated by lapse of time on February 1, 1906. The correctness of this material averment depends, as the parties agree, upon the interpretation to be given to that portion of the language of the lease which prescribes the period for which the lessee was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Webb v. Ambler
... ... Pleas upon a writ of error from a judgment of a justice of ... the peace in an action of summary process. Connors v ... Clark, 79 Conn. 100, 63 A. 951 ... Since ... these decisions there have been at least seven [125 Conn ... 546] instances where ... ...
- Rudnyai v. Town of Harwinton
-
Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC.
...“where doing so would conflict with the plain reading of operative language elsewhere in the contract”). Although Connors v. Clark, 79 Conn. 100, 63 A. 951 (1906), predated the enactment of § 47a–25, our Supreme Court's interpretation of a similarly positioned waiver provision is illuminati......