Mary Mead Hinsman v. Marble Savings Bank

• Decision Date: 16 October 1926
• Citation: 134 A. 635,100 Vt. 48
• Parties: MARY MEAD HINSMAN ET AL. v. MARBLE SAVINGS BANK ET AL
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

134 A. 635

100 Vt. 48

MARY MEAD HINSMAN ET AL. v. MARBLE SAVINGS BANK ET AL

Supreme Court of Vermont

October 16, 1926

May Term, 1926.

ACTION OF JUSTICE EJECTMENT under G. L. 2146. Plea, not guilty. Trial by jury in Rutland city court, G. M. Goddard, City Judge, presiding. Verdict directed for plaintiffs and judgment on verdict. The defendants excepted. The opinion states the case.

Action dismissed with costs to defendants.

Lawrence Stafford & Bloomer for defendant Marble Savings Bank and Charles E. Novak for defendant Joseph Segale.

Fenton Wing & Morse for the plaintiffs.

Present WATSON, C. J., POWERS, SLACK, BUTLER, and FISH, JJ.

OPINION

POWERS

By an instrument dated January 29, 1908, John A Mead, now deceased, leased to the Marble Savings Bank a part of the so-called Mead Building in the city of Rutland. This lease ran for a period of twenty years from September 1, 1907. At some time prior to this suit, the bank vacated the premises and verbally leased the rooms it had occupied to the defendant Segale, who is now in possession running a fruit and vegetable store therein. On August 4, 1925, the plaintiffs, who have succeeded to the rights of Mead, brought this action in Rutland city court under G. L. 2146 to recover the possession of the leased premises, predicating their claim, not on the mere fact that the bank sublet, but on the claim that it sublet the banking rooms for an unauthorized purpose in violation of an implied condition of the original lease; and also upon the further claim that the defendants had violated the covenant requiring them to use the premises in a "good husband-like manner." At the trial below, both sides moved for a verdict; the plaintiffs' motion was granted, and the defendant excepted. It is agreed that in the circumstances it was the duty of the court to construe the lease and to direct such a verdict as its construction required. The lease describes the premises in question as follows: "Being the banking rooms * * * in the' Mead Building' * * * the said rooms including the first room or banking room and vault in the rear thereof, and the directors' room in the rear of said front room * * * * together with the closets opening out of said rooms, all as planned by C. E. Paige, the architect of said block." Elsewhere in the lease, the premises covered thereby are spoken of, sometimes as the "banking rooms," at other times as the "rooms," and at still other times as the "premises." The instrument contains no provision against or regarding subletting, though it clearly recognizes the right to sublet, as it refers to the "lessee, its successors and assigns."

We cannot agree with the plaintiffs that the language of the lease, taken alone, should be so construed as to limit the use of the premises to banking purposes. Nor can we say as matter of law that the covenant for good husbandry has been broken,--though there may be evidence in the record tending to show it. Nor is this ground of recovery relied upon in the brief.

It does not follow, however, that the bank was within its legal rights when it sublet the premises for a fruit store. The law of implied covenants is as claimed by the plaintiffs. When as here, the lease is silent on the subject a...