Scott-Burr Stores Corp. v. Wilcox
| Decision Date | 18 March 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 13718.,13718. |
| Citation | 194 F.2d 989 |
| Parties | SCOTT-BURR STORES CORP. v. WILCOX et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Thos. G. Murnane, Dallas, Tex., for appellant.
Chandler Lloyd, Dallas, Tex., for appellees.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and RIVES, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from a judgment finding and declaring that the appellant had not timely exercised its right of renewal of a lease of commercial property in Dallas, Texas. Appellant occupied the premises under a lease "for a term of ten years, beginning March 1, 1942, and ending February 29, 1952." During the term additional premises were occupied and increased rental provided amounting, during the last sixty months of the lease, to $425.00 per month. Both the original lease and the supplement provided a right of renewal as follows: "If the Tenant shall desire to renew this lease for a further term of ten (10) years from the expiration date of the term hereof, and he shall have given the Landlord at least twelve (12) months previous written notice of such desire, this lease shall then be extended for said further term at a rental not greater than ten (10) per cent above $425.00 per month."
On February 27, 1951, at approximately four o'clock, P.M., the tenant, appellant Scott-Burr Stores Corporation, deposited in the United States Mails, at Chicago, Illinois, a letter, by Air Mail, Registered, addressed to the landlord giving notice that the tenant "elects to extend the term of said lease for the period of ten years from and after February 29, 1952" in accordance with the lease agreement. An unregistered carbon duplicate of this letter, with an accompanying letter with reference to the rental, was mailed at the same time. February 27, 1951, through March 1, the Dallas Post-Office made only one usual delivery by letter carrier each day to the territory in which the office of the landlord was located. Each of the three letters referred to were received by the landlord about ten o'clock, A.M., March 1, 1951. Predicated upon the claim that these facts, which were afterwards stipulated as the evidence in the trial of the case, did not show compliance with the requirements of the lease, the appellee-landlords, residents of Texas, instituted this action in the federal Court against the appellant-tenant, a Delaware corporation, praying a declaration that the lease had not been renewed or extended and that all rights of the defendant to occupancy of the premises would cease and terminate no later than February 29, 1952. The defendant-tenant responded by motion to dismiss upon the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction because: the amount of the controversy did not exceed $3,000; the remedy sought was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Court; and the complaint failed to disclose an actual, present controversy. The motion to dismiss was overruled and this judgment, and the judgment upon the merits, entered by the Court upon consideration of the pleadings and the stipulation of facts which granted the declaration sought by the plaintiff, are here assigned as error.
The Court did not err in overruling the motion to dismiss. The complaint showed the existence of a disputed claim as to the effectiveness of an attempt to renew a lease for a period of ten years at an aggregate rental of at least $51,000.00.1 While the date of the beginning of the claimed extended term was in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell v. McCormack
...See, e. g., BORCHARD, supra note 39, at 299; Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. United States, 312 F.2d 545 (2d Cir. 1963); Scott-Burr Stores Corp. v. Wilcox, 194 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1952). 41 See Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 85 S.Ct. 1271, 14 L.Ed.2d 179 (1965); Public Service Commission v. Wykoff Co., 3......
-
United States Aviation Underwriters v. Dassault
...Judgment Act is to settle actual controversies before they ripen into violations of law or a breach of duty. Scott-Burr Stores Corp. v. Wilcox, 194 F.2d 989 (5th Cir.1952). It is not necessary for the maintenance of this action, therefore, for plaintiff to have proven that defendants placed......
-
Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Puget Plastics
...criminal law, or a breach of a contractual duty." Rowan Cos. v. Griffin, 876 F.2d 26, 28(5th Cir.1989) (citing Scott-Burr Stores Corp. v. Wilcox, 194 F.2d 989, 990 (5th Cir. 1952)); see J.E.M. v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y., 928 S.W.2d 668, 672 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ) (......
-
Pina-Rodriquez v. Burroughs
...provide a means of settling an actual controversy before it ripens into a . . . breach of a contractual duty." Scott-Burr Stores Corp. v. Wilcox, 194 F.2d 989, 990 (5th Cir. 1952). The purpose of the Declaratory Judgment act is not the declaration of non-liability for past conduct, but to s......