Rand v. Porter

• Decision Date: 26 March 1936
• Citation: 200 N.E. 898,294 Mass. 72
• Parties: RAND v. PORTER.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

294 Mass. 72

200 N.E. 898

RAND

v.PORTER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 26, 1936.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Swift, Judge.

Action of contract by Nelson C. Rand against Patrick Porter. The superior court ordered a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff saved exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

E. M. Shanley and T. B. Shea, both of Boston, for plaintiff.

P. L. Keenan, of Boston, for defendant.

CROSBY, Justice.

This is an action of contract brought upon an option in writing, dated June 5, 1931, for a lease of a garage situated in Charlestown. The proposed lease was for a term of five years, at a rental of $4,000 per year, payable monthly in advance beginning June 5, 1931, with an option to renew the lease for a further period of five years at the same rental. The agreement recites, in part, that ‘This option may be accepted by the party of the second part or his assigns within thirty days from the date of this instrument.’ The defendant resided in New York City, but he signed the paper in Boston, and on the following day he wrote the plaintiff a letter stating, in substance, that due to the hurry they were in when the option was signed he had made an error of $500 in the rental to be charged, that the annual rental would be $4,500 instead of $4,000, that he could not afford a yearly loss of $500; and he also stated: ‘I am willing to compromise a small amount because the mistake is mine but as the deal stands, it cannot go thru.’ By letter dated July 3, 1931, the plaintiff wrote the defendant as follows: ‘I hereby notify you that I accept the option given by you to me under date of June 5, 1931 whereby you are to lease to me the JunctionGarage at 511 Main Street, Charlestown for a term of five years with an option to renew for a further period of five years at the same rental. As the option expires July 5, 1931 kindly have the papers prepared and executed at once as I am prepared to occupy immediately.’ This letter was sent by registered mail, and was received by the defendant July 4, 1931. It appears from exhibit 7, printed in the record, that the defendant on July 6, 1931, wrote Charles B. Fitz, a broker employed by him, requesting him to prepare a lease from the defendant to the plaintiff, with specific provisions which were to be embodied in the lease. The defendant in his letter stated that a copy of the option agreement was enclosed; and he directed that the lease when prepared should be sent to the plaintiff for his approval. As the option made and delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff is recited to be under seal, it is in effect a sealed instrument. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 4, § 9A. Alfano v. Donnelly, 285 Mass. 554, 556, 189 N.E. 610;Hayden v. Beane (Mass.) 199 N.E. 755. It does not appear that any response was made by the plaintiff to the defendant's letter of June 6, 1931. The plaintiff testified that he was willing to accept his rights under the option.

As the agreement was executed and delivered in this Commonwealth and was to be performed here, it is governed by the law of this Commonwealth. It is also manifest that the defendant was a resident of New York and was expected by the plaintiff to transact this business from New York. In the year 1931, July 4 fell on Saturday and July 5 on Sunday. The first day therefore, after receipt of the acceptance by the plaintiff, on which the defendant could be expected to prepare and deliver to the plaintiff a lease of the premises was on July 6, 1931, in view of all the evidence. The record shows that the defendant wrote from New York on July 6, 1931, to Charles B. Fitz, his broker in Boston, to prepare a lease to the plaintiff in accordance with the option, to insert certain clauses which he stated should be embodied in the lease, and to send a copy...