Conroy v. Toomay
| Decision Date | 27 February 1926 |
| Citation | Conroy v. Toomay, 255 Mass. 87, 151 N.E. 61 (Mass. 1926) |
| Parties | CONROY v. TOOMAY. |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Nelson P. Brown, Judge.
Action of contract by Nora J. Conroy against James F. Toomay. Verdict was directed for defendant, and case was reported. Judgment to be entered on verdict.
F. L. Norton, of Boston, for plaintiff.
E. J. Flynn, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action on a covenant in a lease, dated July 29, 1916, to recover rent in advance for the month of November, 1918. The lease ran for a term of two years from September 1, 1916, and ‘thereafter from year to year, until one of the parties hereto shall, on or before the first day of July in any year, give to the other party written notice of his intention to terminate this lease on the last day of the following August in which case the term hereby created shall terminate in accordance with such notice.’ The answer is a general denial, eviction, and an oral agreement made by the parties between the date of execution of the lease and that on which either party, under its terms, could give notice of intention to terminate.
At the trial, there was evidence to warrant a finding that during the entire occupancy of the apartment there had been an insufficiency of heat and hot water; that the defendant had complained frequently thereof to the plaintiff and had received from her repeated assurances that she would attend to it, but that she always failed to do so; that in June, 1918, the defendant had a conversation with the plaintiff which the jury, in response to a question submitted by the court, found was substantially as follows:
There was further evidence to warrant a finding that, after this conversation and in reliance on the promise of the plaintiff then made, the defendant continued in occupation of the premises until October 21, 1918, when he wrote a letter (which the plaintiff received by mail) as follows:
Under date of October 23, 1918, the plaintiff sent and the defendant received the reply which follows:
The provision of the lease referred to in the letter of the plaintiff reads as follows:
‘It is understood and agreed by and between the parties to this lease, that if the premises are equipped with heating apparatus that the lessor shall furnish heat to the lessee at such times and in such quantities as said lessor shall see fit, and that the lessor does not guarantee any specific degree of heat, and that said lessor is not to be held accountable or liable in any way whatsoever for failure to provide heat, or for the mismanagement or negligence of lessee or his or her household, to properly regulate the valves in...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Lampasona v. Capriotti
... ... Gordon, 220 Mass. 324, 107 N.E. 982; ... Rosenfeld v. Standard Bottling & Extracts Co., 232 ... Mass. 239, 245, 122 N.E. 299; Conroy v. Toomay, 234 ... Mass. 384, 386, 125 N.E. 568; Id., 255 Mass. 87, 90, 151 N.E ... 61; Browne, Stat. of Frauds (5th Ed.) §§ 409a-428; ... ...
-
Williams v. Seder
...former tenancy unless with the mutual assent of the parties. Hastings v. Lovejoy, 140 Mass. 261, 2 N.E. 776,54 Am.Rep. 462;Conroy v. Toomay, 255 Mass. 87, 151 N.E. 61;McCormick v. Proprietors of the Cemetery of Mount Auburn, 285 Mass. 548, 189 N.E. 585. There was no evidence that the tenant......
-
Elm Farm Foods Co. v. Cifrino
...demur to the bill on the ground that a sealed instrument cannot be amended by an unsealed one. This is not the law. Conroy v. Toomay, 255 Mass. 87, 90, 151 N.E. 61; Tashjian v. Karp, 277 Mass. 42, 45-46, 177 N.E. 816; Commonwealth Investment Co. v. Fellsway Motor Mart, Inc., 294 Mass. 306, ......
-
Michael Chevrolet v. Institution for Sav. in Roxbury and Its Vicinity
... ... Torrey v. Adams, 254 Mass. 22 , 26-28. Fienberg ... v. Adelman, 260 Mass. 143 ... Bailey v. First Realty ... Co. 305 Mass. 306, 309. Compare Conroy v ... Toomay, 234 Mass. 384 , S. C. 255 Mass. 87; Tashjian ... v. Karp, 277 Mass. 42 , 46; Cohen v. Homonoff, ... 311 Mass. 374 ... But even if an ... ...