Dorne v. Williams

• Decision Date: 21 July 1953
• Citation: 140 Conn. 193,98 A.2d 796
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: DORNE v. WILLIAMS. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 796

98 A.2d 796

140 Conn. 193

DORNE v. WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 21, 1953.

John W. Joy, Hartford, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Charles V. James, Norwich, for the appellee (defendant).

Before BROWN, C. J., and BALDWIN, INGLIS, O'SULLIVAN and CORNELL, JJ.

O'SULLIVAN, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff instituted this action to recover one-half of the cost of repairs alleged to have been made by him to real property of the defendant's decedent. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, fixing damages at $1,529.36 instead of the $6,570.50 he claimed. The court further adjudged that the $1,529.36 be liquidated by the plaintiff's retaining and applying against the judgment indebtedness the monthly rental of $30 payable by the plaintiff under the provisions of a long-term lease entered into by him and the defendant's decedent. From the foregoing judgment the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

The finding, with such corrections as are warranted, recites the following facts: The defendant is the executrix under the will of Miss Harriet C. Williams, who, on June 5, 1949, died in Florida at the age of seventy-five. For many years prior to her death Miss Williams had owned, at Crescent Beach in the town of East Lyme, a tract of land upon which stood a three-story house known as the Old Homestead and, to its rear, a two-story building formerly used as a garage but later remodeled into two apartments. The homestead was divided into a northerly and a southerly apartment, each consisting of six rooms. During the summer seasons, Miss Williams was accustomed to occupy the southerly apartment. The homestead was almost fifty years old and was pretty much run-down. It was of frame construction with shingled sides and roof but without interior sheathing or plastering. The remodeled garage was of similar construction.

On September 19, 1947, the plaintiff obtained a written lease of the northerly apartment in the homestead and of the two apartments in the rear building for a term of ten years. It fixed the rent at $30 a month and gave the plaintiff the right to sublet. During the preceding summer, Miss Williams had been annoyed by water leaking into her own apartment. At the time of executing the lease, she talked to the plaintiff about this condition and the need for temporary repairs. The subject was again discussed in the summer of 1948 when she returned from her winter home in Florida. She then consented to the plaintiff's getting estimates for repairs. Thereafter, he showed contractors through the property and told them what he would like to have them do. The lowest estimate approximated $12,000. When Miss Williams learned of this figure, she decided not to have the work done. Being again plagued by leaks during the same summer, she made up her mind to put a new roof and siding on the homestead. Once more she talked the matter over with the plaintiff, suggesting that he do the work and that each pay one-half of the cost. The plaintiff protested that this was not fair to him under his existing lease. He would agree to the proposition, however, if Miss Williams would give him another lease, similar in all respects to the 1947 lease, but with the added provision that he could renew it under the same provisions and conditions for an additional term of ten years. This being agreeable to Miss Williams, a new lease on these terms, superseding the existing one, was executed on September 18, 1948.

On the same date, Miss Williams and the plaintiff signed a written agreement as set forth in the footnote. ¹ 1] The agreement and the lease were drafted by the plaintiff. Before she signed, Miss Williams examined both instruments and stated that they correctly covered her agreements with the plaintiff. Within a few hours thereafter she left by train for Florida. On the way to the railroad station she said that she intended to sell a piece of property in Florida to pay for her share of the repairs. Because of her death during the following June, she never returned to Connecticut.

After Miss Williams had left for the south, the plaintiff began to have work done on the two buildings. He had new roofs and sidings placed on both, and he screened the windows and doors. In the homestead, partitions were moved, doorways changed, new rooms finished off, rubber tile flooring laid in sections, the interior painted and papered, and cellar walls and hatchways rebuilt. He also installed in it the following items: new ceilings, wall sheathing and floors, interior trim and baseboards, new copper plumbing, toilets, lavatories, electric wiring, insulation in the walls of the northerly apartment, new stair treads and handrails, and a new oil tank with piping laid under the cellar floor. In the building to the rear, a new concrete veranda floor was laid, the building was rewired and painted inside and out, and there were installed new toilets and showers, new interior walls, trim, ceilings, rubber tile flooring, and cabinets. A 500-gallon septic tank with a 200-foot drainage field was built to serve the homestead, and a 300-gallon tank with a 75-foot field the other building. New concrete walks were laid and the grounds were landscaped. A 220-volt electric system was set up and a 200-foot artesian well drilled to provide water for both buildings. A substantial amount of the work, including the drilling of the well, was done after Miss Williams died. It was not established that during her lifetime she knew the nature of the work being done on the property.

Within the time limited by the Probate Court the plaintiff presented to the defendant a claim for $6,570.50, with interest. That amount represented one-half of what the plaintiff maintained was the cost of repairs he had made. The claim was disallowed in full.

The court found that the total expenditures for repairs made by the plaintiff within the provisions of his agreement with Miss Williams were $3,058.72. The following items were included: Shingling, labor and materials for siding, porch repairs and exterior painting, $1,341; shingles, $168; drilling well, $935; plumbing, $461.72; screen materials, $108; screen doors, $45. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff to recover one-half of that sum.

The plaintiff maintains that the court erred in limiting damages to $1,529.36, since the correct amount of recovery, he insists, should have been $6,570.50 representing, as that sum does, one-half of the cost of all work done to the entire property. The answer to that claim is found in his agreement with Miss Williams under date of September 18, 1948. What we are bound to regard when examining that instrument is, not the intent that the parties to it may have had, or the intent we think that they ought to have had, but the intent which they expressed in it. Ives v. Willimantic 121 Conn. 408, 411, 185 A. 427. Their intent is to be determined from the language used, in the light of their situation and of the circumstances connected with the transaction. Bronx Derrick & Tool Co. v. Porcupine Co., 117 Conn. 314, 318, 167 A. 829. A fair interpretation of the language in this agreement is, first, that Miss Williams and the plaintiff intended that the contemplated work should consist of repairs as distinguished from capital changes or improvements, and, second, that the repairs were to be made only to the homestead. We discuss each of these briefly.

...