Wall v. Stimpson

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: RORABACK, J.
• Citation: Wall v. Stimpson, 83 Conn. 407, 76 A. 513 (Conn. 1910)
• Decision Date: 12 July 1910
• Parties: WALL v. STIMPSON.

76 A. 513

83 Conn. 407

WALL

v. STIMPSON.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 12, 1910.

Appeal from City Court of Hartford; Herbert S. Bullard, Judge.

Action for rent by H. Josephine Wall against John Stlmpson. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. No error.

Ralph M. Grant, for appellant.

Samuel B. Harvey, for appellee.

RORABACK, J. The complaint stated that "On October 3, 1908, the plaintiff and defendant executed a lease of the premises located in the rear of No. 1122 Main street in said Hartford, of which Exhibit A, hereunto annexed, is a copy. The rent for said premises from December 1, 1908, to July 1, 1909, to the total amount of $420, due under said lease, is unpaid."

The following is a copy of Exhibit A:

"Hartford, Conn., Oct. 3, 1908. This agreement entered into this day between H. Josephine Wall and John Stimpson is to the effect that John Stimpson shall have the lease of all stables, barns, sheds and necessary yard room for teams, located in the rear of 1122 Main street, together with the stable office and one tenement of three rooms on the floor over the office and two attic rooms overhead in the office building and also the sheds and barns on the north side of the gangway entering from Main street, at the monthly rate of sixty dollars ($60) per month payable in advance until July 1, 1909, when the rate shall be $75.00 per mo., with the privilege of leasing the same for the period of Ave years at the rate of seventy-five dollars per month, payable in advance. Stimpson to make his own repairs and pay for the water and electric light used by him on said premises. No wagons may be washed under the house. Stimpson shall have the right to sublet any of this property as he pleases. Stimpson shall exempt H. Josephine Wall from all damages to horses, to teams and men on the premises. H. Josephine Wall. John Stimpson. T. P. Mullane, Witness."

The court has found that on October 3, 1908, the plaintiff leased the premises to the defendant by a written Instrument of that date, a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit A to the plaintiff's amended complaint. The defendant took possession of these premises immediately after the lease was executed, and was possessed of and occupied them until December 3, 1908, and paid rent therefor at the rate of $60 per month. On December 3,

1908, the defendant vacated the premises and tendered the keys thereto to the plaintiff, which the planitiff refused to accept, and thereafter the defendant sent the keys to the plaintiff by mail. Since December 3, 1908, the defendant has paid no rents to the plaintiff for the use of the premises.

The following conclusions were reached: That as the instrument Exhibit A reserved a monthly rent, namely, $60 per month for each month of occupancy prior to July 1, 1909, and $75 per month for each month of occupancy subsequent to July 1, 1909, but contained no agreement as to time of termination of the lease, the lease was to be construed as a lease from month to month. The controlling question presented by the appeal is whether the court erred in making this decision.

Every contract sufficient to make a good lease for years or for any definite period ought to have certainty in at least three limitations, viz., in the commencement of the term, in the continuance of it, and in the end of it. All these ought to be known at the commencement of the lease. In the writing under...