New York Cent. R. Co. v. Stoneman
| Decision Date | 24 June 1919 |
| Citation | 233 Mass. 258,123 N.E. 679 |
| Parties | NEW YORK CENT. R. CO. et al. v. STONEMAN et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; John F. Brown, Judge.
Suit by the New York Central Railroad Company and others against David Stoneman and others, resulting in ruling that the bill could not be maintained. On report to the Supreme Judicial Court. Ruling reversed, and case ordered to stand for further hearing.
George H. Fernald, Jr., of Boston, for plaintiffs.
Stoneman, Gould & Stoneman, of Boston, for defendants.
The plaintiffs leased from the owners the second and third floors and part of the first floor and basement of a building, to be occupied as a freight office for their freight terminal in Boston. The lease was in writing and the defendants as mortgagees of the property, assented to it and agreed to be bound by its terms if they foreclosed the mortgage before the expiration of the lease. The bill seeks to enforce specific performance of the lease which provides ‘that the demised premises shall be heated by the lessors to a proper warmth for office purposes.’ The judge of the superior court before whom the case was tried ruled that upon the facts recited in the report the bill could not be maintained, and reported the case to this court.
It is recited in the report that ‘it is necessary for the proper operation of the railroad for it to operate freight trains on Sundays and at night’; and that ‘it appeared in evidence that other transportation companies in Boston, namely, the Boston & Maine Railroad, the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad and the American Railway Express Company keep their freight offices open twenty-four hours in the day, Sundays and holidays included, and properly heated, although the force of clerks on duty at night and on Sundays and holidays is smaller than on week days and varies according to the amount of business, and that it is necessary for the handling of freight to keep a force of clerks at the freight offices continuously’; and further, that the plaintiffs entered into possession of the premises in August, 1917, and have continued in possession ever since, except that since December 28, 1917, the railroad has been operated by the federal Director General of Railroads.
The lessors kept the premises heated to a proper warmth for office purposes continuously twenty-four hours in the day including Sundays and holidays until February 16, 1918, when the defendants made an entry on the premises for the purpose of foreclosing their mortgage, but left the building in charge of the lessors who continued to furnish heat as previously. The defendants' agent in charge of the building in March, 1918, learned that heat was furnished night and day and continued to so furnish it until November, 1918, when the defendants notified the plaintiffs that they would not thereafter furnish heat at night or on Sundays or holidays. During the previous winter the lessors had difficulty in obtaining coal for heating the building and the plaintiffs furnished them with about twenty-five tons for that purpose. The lessors promised to pay for the coal but failed to do so; and afterwards the plaintiffs, with the consent of the defendants' agent, deducted from the rent due the defendants the cost of the coal.
The broker of the lessors, who negotiated the lease with the plaintiffs' representative, was told by the latter that the premises were to be used by the railroad as a freight office for its freight terminal in Boston, and would be occupied by a night force as well as a day force; and while the lessors were not told by their broker that the office would be open night and day, still they knew that the premises were to be used by the railroad as a freight office for its freight terminal.
The provision in the lease ‘that the demised premises shall be heated by the lessors to a proper warmth for office purposes,’ relates only to the degree of heat to be furnished and not to the time during which heat...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freund Motor Co. v. Alma Realty & Inv. Co.
... ... contracting parties is of the greatest weight in determining ... their true meaning. New York Central R. R. Co. v ... Stoneman, 233 Mass. 258, 123 N.E. 679; McFarland v ... Gillioz, 327 Mo ... ending on March 31, 1940, "at a rental based upon an ... amount equal to one per cent of the [235 Mo.App. 590] total ... gross sales made by the lessee from all sources during the ... ...
-
Freund Motor Co. v. Alma Realty & Inv. Co.
...and conduct of the original contracting parties is of the greatest weight in determining their true meaning, New York Central R.R. Co. v. Stoneman, 233 Mass. 258, 123 N.E. 679; McFarland v. Gillioz, 327 Mo. 690, 37 S.W. (2d) 911; Eisenstadt Mfg. Co. v. Star Bldg. Co. (Mo. App.), 233 S.W. 28......
-
McCormick v. Proprietors of Cemetery of Mt. Auburn
...Mass. 564, 40 N. E. 1044,47 Am. St. Rep. 485), and the furnishing of heat to a tenant in an office building. New York Central Railroad Co. v. Stoneman, 233 Mass. 258, 123 N. E. 679;Id., 236 Mass. 81, 127 N. E. 506. Where specific performance of a contract to build or do work has been decree......
-
Boston & A.R. Co. v. New York Cent. R. Co.
...placed upon doubtful or ambiguous words in a contract is of great weight in determining their true meaning. New York Central Railroad v. Stoneman, 233 Mass. 258, 123 N. E. 679. Considering the prupose of the lease, the reasons which would justify the issuance of bonds, and the possibility t......