Weeks v. Wilhelm-dexter Co.

• Decision Date: 02 April 1915
• Citation: 108 N.E. 365,220 Mass. 589
• Parties: WEEKS et al. v. WILHELM-DEXTER CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

220 Mass. 589

108 N.E. 365

WEEKS et al. v. WILHELM-DEXTER CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

April 2, 1915

COUNSEL

Gaston Snow & Saltonstall, of Boston, for plaintiffs.

P. M Lewis and Spaulding & Lewis, all of Boston, for defendant.

OPINION

BRALEY J.

The demised premises were occupied and used by the defendant for the manufacture and sale of paints, shellac, oils and similar compounds, and the answer of the jury to the third question establishes the fact that the basement and ground floors were in the same general condition at the end as at the beginning of the term.

But in addition to the covenant to maintain 'the premises including the plumbing in such repair, order and condition as the same are in at the commencement of said term or may be put in during the continuance thereof,' the lessee further covenanted that it 'will at the expiration of this lease remove all rubbish and all goods and effects of itself and of all persons claiming under it and peacefully yield up to the lessors or to those having the estate therein the premises and all erections and additions made to or upon the same, clean and in good repair, order and condition in all respects.'

It is plain that under the first covenant the defendant was bound only to deliver the premises in the same good order and condition as at the date of the lease, reasonable use and wear excepted, and failure to do this would subject the lessee to damages, in a sum sufficient to put them in the required condition. Watriss v. Cambridge National Bank, 130 Mass. 343, 345.

The second covenant, however, is not repugnant to the first covenant. The defendant had been in occupation under prior leases during which the deposit on the floors of a thick, irremovable mucilaginous substance had accumulated and the lessee did not more than to covenant to restore the building to a rentable condition. By this construction all parts of the instrument are reconciled and full force and effect given to each covenant. Ferguson v. Union Mutual Life Ins. Co., 187 Mass. 8, 10, 72 N.E. 358, and cases cited; Ball v. Wyeth, 8 Allen, 275; Hill v. Hayes, 199 Mass. 411, 85 N.E. 434, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 375.

The jury having specially found that the lessee at the expiration of the lease failed to leave the premises 'clean and in good repair, order and condition in all respects,' the verdict for the defendant was improperly ordered.

If the jury...