Gray v. Gregory, 31281.
| Decision Date | 18 May 1950 |
| Docket Number | 31281. |
| Parties | GRAY, v. GREGORY et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2. Futter, Merrick & Merrick, Pasco, for appellant.
Horrigan & Leavy, Pasco, for respondents.
A demurrer to the complaint was sustained. The action was dismissed. Plaintiff appeals. The appellant is the owner of a certain business property in the city of Pasco. She sought, in her action, to forfeit a long-term lease thereon.
On May 8, 1947, she served a notice upon respondents terminating the lease and requiring a vacation of the premises not later than June 1 1947. This notice purported to be pursuant to clause V of the lease, which reads as follows:
'(1) Waivers of lien from all contractors and material men furnishing work or services in connection with such project as set forth in said notice.
'(2) or in lieu thereof, lessee may deposit with lessor, a surety bond with corporate surety, guaranteeing the payment by lessee of all of the expenses and costs set forth in the notice above described.
'(3) or in lieu thereof, lessee may deposit in escrow with such bonk or trust company as shall be qualified to do business at either Pasco Washington, or Walla Walla, Washington, a sum of money equal to the amount of costs and expense described in said notice to be held for payment of such costs and expenses.
'(c) Such work of reconstruction and remodeling, if any, shall be carried out by lessee in proper, fit and workmanlike manner and shall comply with all existent statutes and ordinances.'
The giving of the notice of termination of the lease and the demand to vacate was predicated on the allegation that on or about the 18th of April, 1947, respondents removed a main partition of the building without complying with clause V of the lease in any respect.
No notice of default, as such, was given, nor time allowed in which to cure the alleged breach of the lease. The lease provided (Italics ours.) The appellant contends that no notice of default was necessary upon the ground that the breach was incurable and irremediable. She contends that to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Munro v. Swanson, No. 55811-1-I/2 (Wash. App. 2/20/2007)
...by Whitehead, LLC involve leases in which the application of a notice-and-opportunity-to-cure provision was clear. Gray v. Gregory, 36 Wn.2d 416, 419, 218 P.2d 307 (1950) (where the lease referred to defaults generally, and the tenant's actions were curable, the landlord was not entitled to......
-
DC Farms, LLC v. Conagra Foods Lamb Weston, Inc., 30963–1–III.
...for cancellation of the lease or for damages for breach.Id. at 182, 67 P.2d 858 (citations omitted). ¶ 42 In Gray v. Gregory, 36 Wash.2d 416, 218 P.2d 307 (1950), the court went a step further in protecting the interests of a lessee who was contractually entitled to notice and an opportunit......
-
Lindner v. Meadow Gold Dairies, Inc.
...of default provision in Article V § 1 apply. Other authority cited by SFG is similarly distinguished. See, e.g., Gray v. Gregory, 36 Wash.2d 416, 218 P.2d 307, 308 (1950) (prior to terminating a lease and requiring a vacation of the premises, lessor must give notice and an opportunity to cu......
-
Stevenson v. Parker
...particularly in view of the uncontradicted evidence of Mrs. Corbray's offer to pay the rental delinquency. Gray v. Gregory, 36 Wash.2d 416, 419, 218 P.2d 307 (1950); Republic Investment Co. v. Naches Hotel Co., 190 Wash. 176, 180, 67 P.2d 858 Even in the absence of the 15-day right-to-remed......