Pfister & Vogel Co. v. Fitzpatrick Shoe Co.

• Decision Date: 25 February 1908
• Citation: Pfister & Vogel Co. v. Fitzpatrick Shoe Co., 197 Mass. 277, 83 N.E. 878 (Mass. 1908)
• Parties: PFISTER & VOGEL CO. v. FITZPATRICK SHOE CO. In re FITZPATRICK.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

197 Mass. 277

83 N.E. 878

PFISTER & VOGEL CO. v. FITZPATRICK SHOE CO.

In re FITZPATRICK.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 25, 1908

COUNSEL

Oscar A. Marden, for petitioner.

William A. Knowlton and Johnson, Clapp & Underwood, for respondent.

OPINION

RUGG J.

This petition for leave to prove claim was heard before a justice of this court, who found that the alterations, for which the petitioner asks damages, were made with the knowledge and assent of the petitioner, that they were reasonably necessary to adapt the premises to the uses of the defendant tenant as shoe manufacturer, and that the premises have not deteriorated during the occupancy by the willful or negligent conduct of the lessee. These findings will not be disturbed unless shown to be plainly wrong. The evidence was oral, and the presiding justice saw the witnesses, and had the opportunity to test by his own observation the weight to which each was entitled. Without resting upon this ground however, the finding appears upon the record to have been fully warranted. It is obvious that the building of the petitioner at the time it was leased was ill adapted for economical use in connection with the defendant's other factory without the making of some changes. There was evidence tending to show a discussion between the landlord and tenant as to these necessary changes, in which the former refused to bear any expense in that connection and gave...