McIsaac v. Hale

• Decision Date: 08 April 1926
• Citation: 104 Conn. 374,132 A. 916
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MCISAAC v. HALE.

132 A. 916

104 Conn. 374

MCISAAC v. HALE.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 8, 1926

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; George E. Hinman Judge.

Action for the recovery of rent by Allan McIsaac against Junius H Hale Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Error and cause remanded, to be proceeded with according to law.

Benedict E. Lyons and John R. Hayes, both of Hartford, for appellant.

Henry J. Calnen, of Hartford, for appellee.

HAINES, J.

The material facts found are the following: A partnership, of which the defendant was a member, had for about three years prior to April, 1919, occupied the plaintiff's premises under an oral lease at a rental of $90 per month, and there conducted a public garage. During that occupancy and prior to December 1, 1918, the plaintiff had made and completed certain changes and improvements in the premises at a cost of $3,709.36. The partnership being dissolved on or about April 25, 1919, the defendant thereafter conducted this garage business. In the spring of 1919 the defendant discussed with the plaintiff the matter of taking a written lease. It was agreed that certain other changes should be made in the premises by the plaintiff, and defendant would take a written lease. The plaintiff fixed the rental at $115 per month, the increase of $25 per month being made because of the cost to the plaintiff of the improvements previously made. It was mutually agreed that when additional contemplated improvements were completed the total annual rental should be increased to the extent of 10 per cent. of the cost of the additional improvements. There was a further provision that the receipts and vouchers showing the cost of such improvements should be submitted to the defendant by the plaintiff, and they would mutually agree upon the amount as a basis for estimating the 10 per cent. increase in rental. A written lease was prepared and executed under date of April 25, 1919, which was to embody this understanding. The additional improvements were made at a cost to the plaintiff of approximately $1,515. One of the changes--that of the motorization of the elevator--was not satisfactory to the defendant, who claimed he was unable, by reason of the defective installation, to avail himself of the use of it for the purposes for which it was installed. There was a delay and a confusion in submitting the bills to the defendant, and several conferences took place between them. All were finally produced except three, and these have never been submitted, but the expenditure represented by them has never been disputed by the defendant. The plaintiff insisted that the 10 per cent. should be computed on the cost of all the improvements, both those made before and those made after the lease was agreed upon, a total of $5,224.59, while the defendant claimed that the improvements made in 1918, amounting to $3,709.36, were not intended by the understanding and the lease to be included in the computation. The result was that no agreement was ever reached by the parties, and the defendant continued to occupy the premises to the end of the term of the lease, approximately three years, and paid no additional rental whatever, though having the benefit of the additional improvements, so far as they were of any benefit. The plaintiff now brings this action to recover the additional rental under the terms of the lease.

That portion of the lease relating to this matter, reads as follows:

" * * * Said party of the first part does further agree to make certain alterations, improvements and additions to said leased premises (some of which have already been made), and also agrees to place a motor in the elevator in said building at his own expense. * * * Said party of the second part does hereby agree that as soon as said alterations, improvements and additions are made and motor installed he will pay to the party of the first part, an additional rental for said premises, said increase to be ten per cent. of the cost of making said alterations, improvements, etc., above set forth, but it is agreed that proper receipts and vouchers covering said improvements and changes are to be presented to said party of the second part, and when agreed to by the parties hereto the monthly rental of said premises to be increased accordingly pro rata on a ten per cent. annual increase when determined as above. The party of the first part also agrees to make all repairs in and to said leased premises, at his own expense."

There is an ambiguity in the wording of the above provisions. While on its face the lease appears clear, yet it is not possible to say from a reading exactly what improvements were intended as a basis for the computation of the 10 per cent. additional rental. The trial court properly had recourse to the evidence, and has found that the improvements made in 1918 were not within the contemplation of the parties when the lease was made, and, further, that the increase of $25 per month which was made when the lease was executed was made because of the 1918 improvements.

The trial court held that the submission of the bills and the agreement of the parties as to the amount of the same upon which the additional rental was to be computed was a condition precedent to the obligation of the defendant to pay the additional rental, and that, such submission never having been completely made, and the amount never agreed upon by the parties, the defendant was not required to pay any additional rent, and so gave judgment for the defendant.

The plaintiff seeks numerous changes in the finding, and presents a transcript of all the evidence under the...