Gardner v. Hazelton
| Decision Date | 09 January 1877 |
| Citation | 121 Mass. 494 |
| Parties | George H. Gardner v. Benson C. Hazelton |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued November 15, 1876
Suffolk. Contract for breach of the following agreement in writing signed by the defendant:
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Rockwell, J., the plaintiff proved the execution and delivery of the agreement declared on, and offered to show by parol that the agreement referred to and intended by the words, "have agreed to let, lease and give possession," was an agreement to assign to the plaintiff a written lease then held by the defendant, of the premises described, for the unexpired term of the lease; and that on said September 1 the plaintiff tendered to the defendant $ 200 in money, and a satisfactory note for $ 450 at ninety days' sight, and then demanded of the defendant an assignment of the lease and performance of the defendant's agreement. The plaintiff also contended, and requested the judge to rule, if parol evidence was inadmissible for the purpose of showing such intended assignment, then that, by the legal construction of the memorandum, the plaintiff, upon due tender by him of the money and note therein stipulated, became entitled to the possession and occupancy of the described premises as a tenant thereof from year to year. The judge declined to rule as requested, but ruled that the words "have agreed to let, lease and give possession" did not imply or include an agreement for the assignment of the defendant's lease for the entire unexpired term of the lease; that parol evidence to prove such an agreement was incompetent and inadmissible; and that the memorandum was insufficient, under the statute of frauds, to sustain the plaintiff's action.
The judge thereupon directed a verdict for the defendant; and reported the case for the consideration of this court. If the rulings were correct, judgment was to be ordered on the verdict; otherwise, the verdict was to be set aside.
Judgment on the verdict.
G. H Kingsbury, for the plaintiff.
T. S Dame, for the defendant.
OPINION
The action is brought to recover damages for the defendant's failure to perform his contract to convey to the plaintiff an interest in land. At the trial, the plaintiff produced a written memorandum signed by the defendant, and claimed the right to show by parol that the agreement therein referred to by the words "have agreed to let, lease and give possession" was an oral agreement of the defendant to assign to the plaintiff, as lessee, an unexpired term of a lease held by him. But the memorandum, required by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farris v. Hershfield
... ... ascertainment. Otherwise only a tenancy at will results ... Cheever v. Pearson, 16 Pick. 266, 271; Gardner v ... Hazelton, 121 Mass. 494, 496; O'Reilly v ... Frye, 263 Mass. 318, 160 N.E. 829; Foley v ... Gamester, 271 Mass. 55, 56-57, 170 N.E. 799 ... ...
-
Manufacturers Light & Heat Co. v. Lamp
... ... agreement inconsistent with it or to first reform, by parol ... evidence, and then enforce it: Gardner v. Hazleton, ... 121 Mass. 494; Safe Dep. & Trust Co. v. Coal & Coke Co; 234 ... Pa. 100; Williams v. Morris, 95 U.S. 444; Hammer v ... ...
-
Foley v. Gamester
...could be terminated at the will of the tenant. This rule is applicable where the tenancy is created by a written contract. Gardner v. Hazelton, 121 Mass. 494. In the case at bar the defendant could remain according to the language of the instrument ‘for as many years as desired’-the term wa......
-
Michelson v. Sherman
...of the contract with reasonable certainty. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 259, § 1, Fourth. Riley v. Farnsworth, 116 Mass. 223, 225;Gardner v. Haselton, 121 Mass. 494, 495; Des Brisay v. Foss, 264 Mass. 102, 109, 162 N.E. 4;Williams v. Commercial Trust Co., 276 Mass. 508, 517, 177 N.E. 538; American Law ......