Galvin v. Simons
| Decision Date | 06 March 1942 |
| Citation | 128 Conn. 616,25 A.2d 64 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | GALVIN et al. v. SIMONS. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, District of Waterbury; McDonough, Judge.
Action by Herman Galvin and others against Eva M. Simons to obtain a mandatory injunction ordering the defendant to renew a lease to the plaintiffs and an injunction against the prosecution of a summary process proceeding. From a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas in a proceeding tried to the court, the defendant appeals.
Error in the form of judgment only, and the case remanded with a direction to correct the form of the judgment.
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and AVERY, BROWN, JENNINGS, and ELLS, JJ.
James M. Lynch, of Waterbury, for appellant (defendant).
Luke H. Stapleton, of New Haven, for appellees (plaintiffs).
In this suit the plaintiffs sought to enjoin the prosecution of an action of summary process brought by the defendant to recover possession of a tenement owned by her in the town of Cheshire and to require her to renew a lease in accordance with its terms. The facts found in so far as they are relevant to the decisive questions raised by the appeal are as follows: The defendant is the owner of a duplex house in Cheshire with garage and a barn on the premises. In October, 1938, the plaintiffs and defendant negotiated for a lease to the former of the northerly half of the house, space for one car in the garage and also the right to use the barn for manufacturing purposes.
The lease was drafted by the defendant's attorney, given to the plaintiffs and executed and acknowledged by them. It ran from October 10, 1938 to April 30, 1941. The following agreement for renewal was included: "It is further agreed that the Lessecs shall have the right to the renewal of this lease for an additional one-year period, provided that written notice of an intention to demand such a renewal is delivered to the Lessor by the Lessecs at least ninety (90) days prior to the 30th day of April, 1941."
After the lease had been executed by the plaintiffs, they delivered it to the defendant. She told them that she would execute the lease and leave it for record at the town clerk's office the next day but has neither executed the lease nor had it recorded. Relying on her promise the plaintiffs made no further inquiry but were of the opinion that the lease had been duly executed and recorded. They lost their copy of the lease and were under the impression that the privilege of renewal could be exercised within sixty days before the expiration of the original term. The plaintiffs entered into possession of the premises, have continued to occupy them ever since and have paid the monthly rental specified. In accordance with the terms of the lease the plaintiffs made various alterations and improvements in the barn for the better conduct of their business. The taxable value of the material and equipment used by the plaintiffs is $500 and their expense of moving would be about $100. Subsequent to the occupation of the premises by the plaintiffs, relations between them and the defendant became strained.
On February 21, 1941, the plaintiffs sent the following notice to the defendant:
The premises are convenient for the operation of the plaintiffs' business and other space is not available in Cheshire for that purpose. On April 26, 1941, the plaintiffs received a notice to quit possession of the premises on or before May 6, 1941, and on May 9, 1941, they were summoned to appear before a justice of the peace on the 15th day of that month to answer a suit for possession of the premises. On May 14th the plaintiffs brought this suit praying for relief as indicated above. The defenses interposed were the Statute of Frauds and failure to give notice of a desire to renew within the ninety-day period specified in the lease, and the case was tried on these issues. The trial court concluded that to permit the defendant to interpose the defense of the statute would work a fraud on the plaintiffs and that, in effect, she was estopped by her conduct from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fellows v. Martin, 14055
... ... Such actions have frequently been successful. See Nicoli v. Frouge Corporation, 171 Conn. 245, 368 A.2d 74 (1976); Galvin v. Simons, 128 Conn. 616, 25 A.2d 64 (1942); R & R of Connecticut, Inc. v. Stiegler, 4 Conn.App. 240, 493 A.2d 293 (1985); Damato v. Gilman, 16 ... ...
-
Andrews v. Blake
...42 N.Y.2d 392, 397 N.Y.S.2d 958, 366 N.E.2d 1313, 1317 (1977) (lessee expended $55,000 on improvements). 11. See Galvin v. Simons, 128 Conn. 616, 25 A.2d 64, 66 (1942); Soho Dev. Corp., 517 N.Y.S.2d at 500. 12. See Galvin, 25 A.2d at 65. 13. See Fletcher, 404 A.2d at 1109; Soho Dev. Corp. 1......
-
Western Sav. Fund Soc. of Philadelphia v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Authority
... ... which have recognized an equitable right to renew despite ... failure to give timely notice. See, e. g., Schneider, 211 ... F.2d at 1358; Galvin v. Simons, 128 Conn. 616, 25 A.2d 64 ... (1942); Deane v. Mitchell, 312 Ky. 389, 227 S.W.2d 893 ... (1950); Application of Topp, supra. However, ... ...
-
Western Sav. Fund Soc. of Philadelphia v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Authority
...recognized an equitable right to renew despite failure to give timely notice. See, e. g., Schneider, 211 F.2d at 1358; Galvin v. Simons, 128 Conn. 616, 25 A.2d 64 (1942); Deane v. Mitchell, 312 Ky. 389, 227 S.W.2d 893 (1950); Application of Topp, supra. However, the mere fact that such impr......