Hall v. Solomon

• Decision Date: 29 February 1892
• Citation: 23 A. 876,61 Conn. 476
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: HALL et al. v. SOLOMON.

23 A. 876

61 Conn. 476

HALL et al.

v. SOLOMON.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Feb. 29, 1892.

Appeal from superior court, Hartford county; Robinson, Judge.

Action of Thomas S. Hall and others against Isadore H. Solomon to restrain defendant from using his premises, or allowing them to be used, for a liquor saloon or for the sale of intoxicants. A permanent injunction issued. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. Walsh, for appellant.

C. E. Perkins and F. L. Hungerford, for appellees.

CARPENTER, J. April 19, 1884, Thomas S. Hall, one of the plaintiffs, and Lauretta S. North, trustees of the estate of Henry North, deceased, being duly authorized by the will of said Henry North to sell and convey real estate held by them in trust, sold and conveyed a building lot on Main street, in the city of New Britain, to the defendant. About the same time, and within one or two years before, they also sold other building lots in the immediate vicinity to other parties. The several purchasers, including the defendant, entered into a parol agreement with said trustees that no portion of the premises so sold should be used for the sale of intoxicating liquors. This agreement was in each case a part of the consideration of the sale. The fact that such an agreement was required of each of the purchasers was an inducement operative with most of the purchasers in buying the lots, and locating their business in that locality. Most of said purchasers are co-plaintiffs with said Hall. It is alleged and found true that the defendant now intends to use, or to allow to be used, the premises bought by him as aforesaid, for the sale of liquors, and that he threatens to lease the lower or main floor of the building erected by him on said land to one James Dawson for the purpose of establishing and carrying on a liquor saloon." The superior court issued a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from using, or allowing to be used, his said premises for the purposes of a liquor saloon, or for the sale of intoxicating liquors. The defendant appealed.

The first reason of appeal is that the court erred in admitting parol evidence of such agreement, on the ground that all parol statements, representations, or agreements in relation to said land were merged in said deeds; that the deeds are conclusively presumed to contain the final and whole agreement in relation to said land; and that such parol evidence was an attempt to vary, qualify, and contradict the absolute language of said several deeds, and their legal operation and effect. It will be remembered that it is not the office of a deed to express the terms of the contract of sale, but to pass the title pursuant to the contract. There fore a parol agreement, being apart of the consideration for the sale, restricting the use of the premises in one particular for a limited period, is not merged in the deed, and does not qualify or in any way affect the title to the land; and the admission of parol evidence to prove such an agreement is no infringement of the rule that parol evidence is not admissible to contradict, vary, or explain a written instrument. Collins v. Tillou, 26 Conn. 368; Pierce v. Woodward, 6 Pick. 206; Willis v. Huibert, 117 Mass. 151; Tallmadge v. Bank, 26 N. Y. 105.

The 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th and 15th reasons of appeal may be considered together. They, in effect, deny the power of the trustees to sell real estate, having no authority under the will, and not being authorized by the court to do so; deny that any title was conveyed to the purchasers; deny that the trustees had any power to make the contracts in question with the purchasers. It may be that there is a defect of power in the trustees to make the conveyances, but it does not follow that the deeds are void. Thomas S. Hall, the husband of one of the devisees, and as the agent of all of them, said devisees being the owners of the Main-Street property, made contracts for the sale of these lots. The deeds, which were designed to pass the title pursuant to the contracts, were executed by Lauretta S. North and Thomas S. Hall as trustees. Lauretta S. North was the widow, and as such had an interest in the estate; was in fact a trustee, and was executrix. Thomas S. Hall was interested as husband of one of the devisees, and was trustee. He was also the agent of the other devisees. Each purchaser paid a valuable consideration, of which the devisees now have the benefit, took possession of the premises, made valuable improvements thereon, and have enjoyed the same unmolested until the present time. Under these circumstances a court of equity, if need be, will have no difficulty in finding a way in which to complete and quiet the purchasers' title. They cannot therefore be heard to say that...