Jack Torosian, Inc. v. Guastamachio

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Before BROWN; BROWN
• Citation: Jack Torosian, Inc. v. Guastamachio, 139 Conn. 754, 97 A.2d 116 (Conn. 1953)
• Decision Date: 26 May 1953
• Parties: JACK TOROSIAN, Inc. v. GUASTAMACHIO et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 116

97 A.2d 116

139 Conn. 754

JACK TOROSIAN, Inc. v. GUASTAMACHIO et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 26, 1953.

John P. Hodgson, Hartford, for appellant.

Benjamin Rabinovitz, Hartford, for appellees.

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

BROWN, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff corporation, which conducted a restaurant-grill in the defendants' premises at 609 Capitol Avenue in Hartford under a lease which expired December 31, 1951, brought this action to enjoin the defendants from prosecuting a summary process proceeding instituted January 3, 1952. The corporation's complaint alleges that the lease had been extended by mutual agreement for ten years from January 1, 1952. The denial of this allegation by the defendants' answer presented the decisive issue at the trial. The court concluded that the corporation failed to prove the contract as alleged and rendered judgment for the defendants, from which the corporation has appealed to this court.

Further relevant undisputed facts may be thus summarized: The corporation, as owner of 621 Capitol Avenue, acting by Jack Torosian, its president, duly authorized by a resolution recorded in its minutes, leased a store therein to the defendants' son Giacchino for a term expiring September 15, 1951. The lease expressly prohibited any assignment or subletting of the premises without the written consent of the lessor. Giacchino and his father, who had some capital invested, conducted the store. As a result of some disagreements which had arisen, in July, 1951, the defendant Peter agreed to purchase the business from his son and so advised his attorney, Parskey. By the spring of 1951 the corporation had become concerned over the approaching expiration date of its lease at 609 Capitol Avenue and desired either to renew it or to get a new lease from the defendants, so that it might continue its profitable business at that address. On July 16, 1951, Torosian, the defendant Peter, Parskey and Suisman, the corporation's attorney, met at Suisman's office to execute a consent to an assignment to Peter of the remaining two months of the term under Giacchino's lease. A consent, prepared by Parskey and examined by Suisman, was executed in their presence and that of Peter by Torosian on behalf of the corporation. On that day at Suisman's office, before, Parskey arrived, Torosian and Peter were talking together. Suisman heard Torosian say to Peter, 'My lease will be for $150. a month for 10 years, and your lease will be $125. a month for 10 years,' and Peter reply, 'Yes, that is correct.' Subsequently, Peter received an offer from another to take a lease of the premises at 609 Capitol Avenue for substantially more than $150 a month and advised the corporation that he would neither enter into a new lease with it for 609 Capitol Avenue nor take a new lease at 621 Capitol Avenue.

The corporation, relying primarily upon the foregoing facts, argues in its brief: 'It is entirely logical, therefore, that the first order of business at the July 16th conference should have resulted in an agreement regarding the leases [and] it is totally illogical to assume, as the trial court did, that Torosian would have proceeded to execute to consent to assign without other consideration had he not felt entirely secure with respect to his own location.' The corporation therefore contends that what it refers to as two of the court's 'conclusions' cannot be sustained. One is to the effect that, though Torosian and Peter did have some conversations relating to a new lease at 609...