Perruccio v. Allen
Citation | 240 A.2d 912,156 Conn. 282 |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Decision Date | 20 March 1968 |
Parties | Santo PERRUCCIO v. Roy C. ALLEN et al. |
Morton H. Libbey, Bristol, and James A. Totten, Hartford, for appellants (defendants).
Anthony A. Tomaro, Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before KING, C.J., and ALCORN, HOUSE, THIM and RYAN, JJ.
The facts in this case are not in dispute. The defendants were associated with a yachting club in East Hartford and wished to have a marina on theConnecticut River. In April, 1959, they leased land fronting on the river to the plaintiff for the purpose of erecting and maintaining boating docks and boating facilities. The lease was for a term of two years at a rental of $50 a year with an option for the plaintiff to renew the lease for an additional term of three years at a rental of $75 a year. Both parties were represented by counsel at the time of the drafting and execution of the lease although both are now represented by other than their original counsel. The plaintiff, exercising his option, operated the leasehold premises during the full term of the lease until April, 1964. In building the marina, he expended moneys and contributed labor to the value of $2600. At the conclusion of the term of the lease in April, 1964, the plaintiff surrendered the premises and left the marina to the defendants. At that time, there was no good will incident to the boating business conducted on the premises.
A paragraph of the lease which the parties have referred to as paragraph 7 provided: The decisive question is whether the words 'upon termination of this lease for any reason' include the ending of the lease by expiration of the term of years provided therein.
Relying on this paragraph of the lease, the plaintiff brought this action for reimbursement from the defendants for the cost of constructing the docks. It is his contention that the words 'termination' and 'expiration' as used in the lease are synonymous and that the word 'termination,' as used in paragraph 7 of the lease, especially when it is coupled with the unqualified and unequivocal phrase 'for any reason,' encompasses any ending of the lease, including the end of the period of its duration.
It is the contention of the defendants that the parties intended a technical or special meaning for the word 'termination' as used in paragraph 7 of the lease and that the plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement only if his leasehold term was ended prior to the expiration of the full five-year term of the lease.
The court concluded that the provision 'upon the termination of this lease for any reason' applied to any termination or ending of the lease and, accordingly, rendered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $2600. From that judgment the defendants have taken this appeal.
On the basis of the facts which it found and from an examination of all of the provisions of the lease, the court, applying the proper rules for its construction, could reasonably and logically have reached the conclusion which it did. In Ingalls v. Roger Smith Hotels Corporation, 143 Conn. 1, 6, 118 A.2d 463, 465, we said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...term of office extended to and included that date. "Expiration" means "coming to an end, termination, close ...." Perruccio v. Allen, 156 Conn. 282, 240 A.2d 912, 914 (1968); "coming to a close," Clevenger v. Kern, 100 Ind.App. 581, 197 N.E. 731, 737 (1935); "cessation, close, end, conclusi......
-
Lonergan v. Connecticut Food Store, Inc.
...court believes they ought to have had.' Ingalls v. Roger Smith Hotels Corporation, 143 Conn. 1, 6, 118 A.2d 463, 465; Perruccio v. Allen, 156 Conn. 282, 285, 240 A.2d 912; Hansel v. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co., 133 Conn. 181, 194, 49 A.2d 666; Colonial Trust Co. v. Hilton, Inc., 111 Conn......
-
Peter-Michael, Inc. v. Sea Shell Associates
...Conn. 122, 128, 357 A.2d 910 (1975); Collins v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 164 Conn. 369, 373-74, 321 A.2d 444 (1973); Perruccio v. Allen, 156 Conn. 282, 285, 240 A.2d 912 (1968)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Central New Haven Development Corp. v. La Crepe, Inc., 177 Conn. 212, 214-15, 4......
-
Van Hosen v. Bankers Trust Co.
...terminology unquestionably denotes an expiration, extinction and cessation of all affected contractual rights. See Perruccio v. Allen, 156 Conn. 282, 240 A.2d 912, 914 (1968); 86 C.J.S., at 606; Black's Law Dictionary at 1641 (4th rev. ed.). From the foregoing flows the unavoidable conclusi......