Maybury Shoe Co. v. Rochester Factory Holding Co.
| Decision Date | 02 June 1936 |
| Citation | 185 A. 654 |
| Parties | MAYBURY SHOE CO. v. ROCHESTER FACTORY HOLDING CO. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Strafford County; Sawyer, Judge.
Suit for a declaratory judgment by the Maybury Shoe Company against the Rochester Factory Holding Company. Case transferred by trial court without a ruling.
Case discharged.
Petition for a declaratory judgment.
The defendant executed a lease of premises in Rochester for a term of years at a prescribed rental. The lease contained its covenant "to give to said lessee the option to extend" the lease for a further term with no change of rental. There was a covenant of the lessees in the instrument "to pay the rent as above stated * * * during the term, and also the rent * * * as above stated, for such further time as the lessee may hold the same." The lessees also covenanted not to assign the lease without the lessor's written assent.
Before the term expired, the lease was assigned to the plaintiff. The defendant did not give written assent to the assignment, but accepted rent from the plaintiff for the balance of the term. Subsequent to the assignment, one of the lessees notified the defendant of it, with an accompanying statement that he waived all of his rights to exercise the options in the lease and that he should "assume no liability whatsoever in the event said options are exercised by the assignees of said lease with respect to the extended term." Subsequently the plaintiff notified the defendant of its decision to exercise the option.
The court (Sawyer, C. J.) transferred without ruling the question whether the option was validly exercised.
Herbert W. Rainie, of Concord, and David N. Borkum, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.
Conrad E. Snow, of Rochester, for defendant.
If it were assumed that the assignee became the lessor's tenant by the latter's acceptance of rent from it, yet the lessees remained liable for the rent accruing after the assignment, by reason of their personal covenant in the lease to pay the rent for the full term. La Societe St. Jean Baptiste v. Owen, 79 N.H. 318, 109 A. 712, and cases cited; Novak v. Fontaine Furniture Co., 84 N.H. 93, 96, 146 A. 525. The option in the lease for a longer term was for its extension, and not for a renewal. Its language is definite in this respect. Any claim that the option was for a renewal may not be sustained without disregard of the plain wording of the lease. See Underbill, Landlord &...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castle v. Double Time, Inc.
...contemplated by the original lease with respect to the rental rate, the present case is distinguishable.Maybury Shoe Co. v. Rochester Factory Holding Co., 88 N.H. 172, 185 A. 654 [1936], held that an assignee could not exercise an option to extend where the lessee had notified the lessor he......
-
Fairchild Realty Co. v. Spiegel, Inc.
...N.C. 333, 156 S.E. 923; Connolly v. Rogers, 292 Mass. 140, 197 N.E. 483, 100 A.L.R. 552, and annotations; Maybury Shoe Co. v. Rochester Factory Holding Co., 88 N.H. 172, 185 A. 654; 32 Am.Jur. 313, 314; 51 C. J.S. Landlord and Tenant § 45, p. There was error in the conclusion that plaintiff......
-
J.G.M.C.J. v. Sears, Roebuck & Company
...assignment, remains liable for the payment of rent during the assignee's extension of the lease. See Maybury Shoe Co. v. Rochester Factory Holding Co., 88 N.H. 172, 185 A. 654, 655 (1936) (noting that "[t]he lessees' personal covenant to pay the rent applied to the extended term [of the lea......
-
Goddard v. Pease
...an extension of the tenancy for a like term, from and after the termination of the current term. Cf. Maybury Shoe Co. v. Rochester Factory Holding Company, 88 N.H. 172, 185 A. 654. 'If the covenant for a renewal is general and unqualified * * * it will be presumed that the renewal lease was......